I am good without an AGPLv2 on the SPDX list. I have never seen it in the
wild. FYI, I did checked the wayback machine, and AGPLv2 has been on the
Affero site since 2007. TomTom Incorvia; tom.incor...@microfocus.com; O:
(512) 340-1336; M: (215) 500 8838 [**NEW**as of Oct 2013]
-Original Message-
From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org
[mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Jilayne Lovejoy
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:39 PM
To: Bradley M. Kuhn; SPDX-legal
Subject: Re: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
Hey Bradley,
just sorting through emails and wanted to make sure we came to some consensus
on this. If I understand correctly then, there really isn't a need for a short
identifier for AGPLv2 because it doesn't exist as a individual license in the
sense that it simply allows something under AGPLv1 to be licensed under AGPLv3
(which, as far as I can tell, AGPLv1 already did...), so if someone did find
AGPLv2, it would really be AGPLv1 or AGPLv3 in terms of what actual license
text applies...
For whatever it's worth, I have never seen the text on this page -
http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html - or any other reference to AGPLv2 in the wild
as far as I can remember, but others might want to weigh in on that.
If the above is a (somewhat) correct characterization (albeit perhaps not
elegantly stated due to fuzzy, post-holiday brain!) then it would seem that we
are okay to do without a AGPLv2 on the SPDX License List.
If anyone disagrees, please speak up :)
Cheers,
Jilayne Lovejoy
SPDX Legal Team lead
lovejoyl...@gmail.com
On Oct 7, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 00:55 (EDT) on Thursday:
>
>> We actually don't have AGPL version 2 on the SPDX License List - I
>> think this might be because it does not really seem to be a separate
>> license in and of itself ?? thoughts?
>
> The whole point of AGPLv2 was to auto-relicense AGPLv1 works
> immediately to AGPLv3, so if you saw AGPLv2 applied in the wild, then
> it'd be similar to the situation of the transitional GPL-incompatible
> Python license back in the very early 2000's, for those that remember that.
>
> It's theoretically possible you could see it in the wild, I suppose,
> if a licensor was confused about how to use AGPLv2. Perhaps that
> information is worth capturing in an SPDX file, although I doubt it.
>
> --
> -- bkuhn
> ___
> Spdx-legal mailing list
> Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
> https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
