Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 à 09:18 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : > Le vendredi 5 novembre 2010 02:35:12, Michael Scherer a écrit : > > > > May I suggest to take a look at the license AGPL v3 for the software > > ( and also the idea behind Franklin Street statement ) > > Why not (although I didn't understand the Franklin Street thing). Why this > very license rather than another one ?
The franklin street statement is just about free web service. And the AGPL is different from the GPL in the sense that user of a network service are considered as user with AGPL, which mean they can ask for source code and modification of the network service, which is not the case of GPL. Ie, if I change a GPL software, let's say imp. The users of the web software are not required to get modification nor source, since this is not executed on their server. That's a loophole in the GPL. With AGPL v3, from what I understood, this is different, according to the section 13 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html . Ie, if I change statusnet, people viewing the website must receive a offer to get the source code much like regular GPL for a regular non networked software. But do not blindly trust me, try to read various things about it before changing ( even if I found some FUD on the web about this :/ ). -- Michael Scherer
