Le vendredi 5 novembre 2010 12:08:57, Michael Scherer a écrit : > > 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 :/ ). > >
I'll take a look. AGPL seems a suitable license at first sight. Regards Samuel Verschelde
