simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Indeed. Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some bytes and developer-time on the licences.
Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
I don't think it's simple to access the PD from all countries. As I understand it, some authors have to wait for copyright to expire now. (I think England is among those countries, but I forget and I work on international projects anyway.)
Why bothering about copyleft at all?
I think there's a place in free software for a strong copyleft.
I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I don't seek excuses not to use the GPLv3, and frankly why should I care what you or Sam *claim* will or will not use?
So, frankly, why are you even reading this thread on this mailing list, let alone posting to it?
These aren't *excuses* not to use the GPLv3, but comments on how it's developing. It seems that the drawbacks of the AGPL are not well-understood. That's fine in general, as most developers probably shouldn't have to worry about these things, but some do!
Personally, I learn a lot from reading the comments of others - especially some of the smarties on this list! - even when I disagree with them, and I doubt that I'm particularly unique in that.
There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these people think it's a good license worth using, at least they are not so vocal about their opinions but just *act*.
Most of the ones I know who have switched to GPLv3 are GNU projects who have done so under some instruction/suggestion from FSF to their maintainers. I'm against the buggy licence-proliferation/drafting process that the FSF is using, but I'm not anti-GPLv3. I am anti-AGPL and currently withholding development work from the only AGPL'd project I'm associated with. If I had the spare developers, I'd reimplement and obsolete that project, but it's not a core business for me.
However, with the publication of *this* particular AGPL in the last few days, a key feature of GPLv3 has suddenly vanished. So what are its key features now? Patent terms which debatably have no place in a copyright licence and should have no effect in sane jurisdictions? Compatibility with both GPLv2 and Apache? The water just got a whole lot muddier.
Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all costs if you have really nothing to say.
Maybe try reading messages and participating in the discussion less stroppily. If one starts by assuming "all these people are enemies of my belovèd" it will never end happily.
Regards,