On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM, MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote: > No, that additional requirement is one of the disadvantages. AGPLv3 > is still a fairly new licence and as far as I know, it's not yet > entirely clear what is meant by "access", particularly for a modular > system like Koha. It might mean that everyone who sees a page is > entitled to the 227Mb source tarball. Who wants to pay for those > downloads?
Github and the like provide very simple solutions to this problem both with ease of administration and ease of cost. AGPLv3 does not specify (see my previous response to Lars' post.) Besides, there are hosting plans available that provide unlimited bandwidth for very, very few $$$ per month if the FTP route was a necessity. <snip> > > Fundamentally, AGPLv3 is based on an absurd idea that one can "ensure > cooperation with the community" (source: AGPLv3 preamble). However, > cooperation by definition must be voluntary (source: > ICA.coop/coop/principles.html ) so legal compulsion is not cooperation. A careful reading of the second paragraph of the Preamble of GPLv2 (the current Koha license) will reveal the fact that the entire purpose of the license is to ensure cooperation with the goal of ensuring at a minimum three things: "...the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs..." It appears that any form of licensing is an attempt to ensure cooperation of some sort among some people. *All* licensing is, in fact, some form of coercion, period. The unfortunate fact of life is that there is somebody, somewhere who will do wrong even if you will not. It would be wonderful if it were otherwise. The we would not need licenses... or laws for that matter. By adopting *any* sort of license, then, we are "ensuring cooperation" at some level. The entire purpose of any GNU license is to provide "legal compulsion" of those who would use FOSS to abide by the wishes of the copyright holder regarding that code. FOSS would patently fail if there were no way to enforce the desire for the code to be free and open source. So the argument against the use of legal compulsion is really self-defeating in this instance. We cannot license *and* avoid the use of "legal compulsion." > > So may we postpone the rest of this discussion to post-3.2.0? As I stated in my original proposal: We are already very active atm, and now is the time to at least begin discussing this change. Kind Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha.org http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
