On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 13:20 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > While the GPL (any version) is not a trivial license, any hacker who > is capable of writting a non-trivial program should be able to grasp > it in an hour.
Perhaps "should", but they don't. > Still, it is a easy license compared to most other licenses, and the > general ideas are easily grasped by the four freedoms of free > software. Compared to most other licences? I'm not sure about that. It's more complex than most BSD-like and Apache-style licences, which are a significant proportion of "other". > Not everyone agrees that the right to see software source on > someone else's machine you're using is a free software right; I'm > not particularly sure I do. > > I think that this is no different than a machine that I own that > prohibits me from upgrading it. Whereas I think it's no different to using a shell on a shared server. > That's a shame if it's not, they did build in a clause to make it > compatible: > > "You may also choose to redistribute modified versions of > this program under any version of the Free Software > Foundation's GNU General Public License version 3 or > higher, so long as that version of the GNU GPL includes > terms and conditions substantially equivalent to those of > this license." > > Perhaps that upgrade route is dead now the Affero clause didn't > make it into the GNU GPLv3. > > This clause has nothing to do with the Affero license though. Er, yes it does - it's a clause in the original Affero licence, which was supposed to provide GPLv3 upgrade capability similar to the LGPL. > The Affero license isn't "substanitally equivalent" to GPLv3. Indeed, so it looks like the Affero -> GPLv3 upgrade route is dead, since the original Affero doesn't mention the possibility of relicensing to the GNU Affero GPL. Cheers, alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
