Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> writes: > Just to clarify – I am not in any way opposed to the hereditary > properties of (A)GPL. The evil thing is the relicensing at the point > where people depend on you, and not the license itself.
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries. Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a library. (For example, does that mean that every application using the library has to provide a URL to download the source of the *library*? Is the user interacting with the library directly over the network?) I think this one is all on Oracle. They're using a license that was never intended for a basic infrastructure library, quite possibly in an attempt to make it obnoxious and excessively onerous to use the open source version, or to create a situation where nearly all users of their library are violating some technical term of the license (or at least are close enough that a lawsuit wouldn't be immediately thrown out) and therefore can be shaken down for cash if Oracle feels like it. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
