Even Rouault <[email protected]> writes: > Can you transparently tell us why Grok is AGPL licensed ? Do you sell > commercial licenses for people who couldn't comply with the AGPL license ?
Certainly a good question. I have no idea in this case and my comments should not be taken to imply anything about this particular library I am guessing that gdal would not contemplate a license change to GPL lightly, and that many (most?) would be opposed to changing to AGPL. My impression is that gdal is all MIT licensed, and that absen't giving some configure arguments to link against proprietary libraries, one ends up with a pure MIT licensed result. If that's wrong, please let me konw and I'll fix up pkgsrc's metadata. Perhaps due to the use of AGPL in many cases as a club to sell proprietary licenses, rather than as a tool to advaance software freedom, or perhaps just due to concerns about network access, I think there is a lot of concern about using AGPL software. When the software is fundamentally a web service, that's one thing (e.g. nextcloud), but when it's a library that then forces large amounts of other software to be offered under AGPL (and perhaps only, with the rlying sources as derived works notion), it seems broadly uncomfortable and in large part unacceptable. My impression is that Debian does not have issues with AGPL3 as it it is formally a Free Software license, even when being used to subvert software freedom. However, I personally view AGPL3 as not reasonable when there is a proprietary-license-also model. I do view it as reasonable when there is no possibility to get a proprietary license AND contributions are accepted back without any kind of mechanism that would enable proprietary licenses (assignment or grants in a CLA). In pkgsrc, which I realize is a minority packaging system, we have excluded AGPL from the set of defautl licenses (equivalent to Debian main) because of the notion that people would find obligations triggereed by merely running software with network access to be surprising. So for us, a license change to AGPL would be a big deal. So while I'd like to understand the licensing stance of Grok, as long as it's AGPL instead of MIT, it seems entirely out of the question to me. I should note that I do not have any -1/+1 tokens to throw around, but that doesn't stop me from ranting :-) Greg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
