On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM, D. Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Daniel Clark wrote: >> (b) Have you guys considered moving to the AGPLv3 license [6]? > > Wouldn't that require tracking down all past contributors to fossil > and getting each to agree to the change?
Even if the AGPL could/would be adopted, i don't think it's necessary for fossil: usage of fossil requires a compatible client app. It is theoretically possible that a service-oriented business could hack their fossil and not release the code, but their hacks would have the limitation that they must work with common fossil clients (*or* they'd have to release their sources so clients could access their service, in which case the AGPL/GPL distinction is moot). i suspect that if fossil had been implemented around a library-style API, as opposed to a monolithic app, any potential GPL/fossil-as-service conflict would be much more likely. Disclaimer: i am not a lawyer -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
