Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
No, the GPL hasn't always attached requirements to "making it available for others to use".
I didn't say it did.
I said that X was "more similar" to Y than it is to Z. I didn't say X == Y.
OK, I've misunderstood: so you only meant to say that viewing the output of some software is more similar to getting a copy than to running it? That's not a whole lot more credible IMO.
Ciaran claimed that [...] does this mean the FSF will [...]?
(Note: I don't work for FSF or set policy for GNU. FSFE and FSF are independent in terms of management, staff, and finances.)
Noted. FSFE seems a bit more talkative and transparent, so sorry if we sometimes try to pump FSFE for information on what the hell FSF are thinking when they appear to do utterly counter-productive things.
FWIW, barring a change in technology or in the way people use computers and networks, I don't think that AGPL will be a widely used licence, so I don't see any big GFDL-sized controversies coming.
I hope it's not widely-used, but the AGPLv2 already caused enough pain and I'm already seeing the FSF Media Monster going into overdrive promoting this, with misdirecting claims like that no developers will be forced to use it. OK, maybe not forced, but our choice on encountering a AGPL'd program that we'd like to adapt will be to avoid that software - if one GPL web app now goes AGPLv3 (particularly if it goes GPLv2+->GPLv3->AGPL), FSF has harmed our development.
Also, all developers must now regard the GPLv3 as no longer a strong copyleft unless they delete/revoke the AGPL-friendly clause. The one thing that worried some developers enough that they published under GPL2-only rather than "or later" has happened!
Hope that explains,