On 04/14/2017 07:48 PM, ng0 wrote: > carlo von lynX transcribed 0.5K bytes: >>> I support the change to AGPL3. >> >> Since no argumentation against the change has >> surfaced, I guess we can proceed. >> > > I'm not so sure. This list is sometimes very slow, and as we know most > discussions happen in 1:1 messages rather than on the list. > I think with the knowledge that other projects and their changes depend on > this, we should have a 5 - 8 weeks deadline for replies.
I agree, and would in fact appreciate more discussion on the matter. My main concerns are exposing which version someone is running (information leakage) and how/where exactly any AGPL provisions might actually apply. I do not quite see how the license change helps until the code actually somewhere has a mechanism to point other peers to the source. So how exactly this could be done should be discussed as well. Until we have this, I see no real harm but also no real benefit in Lynx's proposal. > Once gnunet goes AGPL3, it can not be transformed back to GPL3 due to > one of the paragraphs/numbers in the AGPL3. The other way around works > perfectly fine, at least that's how it was presented to me. > But I'm not a lawyer. This is semi-correct. Switching from GPLv3+ to AGPL does not seem to require consent of all copyright holders. However, due to the centralization of copyrights with GNUnet e.V. the association would be in a position to reverse course later if we later find out that this was a bad move.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
