Re: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 14:39 (EST) on Tuesday: > 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…) Yes, but, *only* for future licenses published by Affero, Inc. Affero, Inc. *had* to publish the AGPLv2 if AGPLv1 folks wanted a transition path to the FSF-published AGPLv3. This is the important subtlety that makes AGPLv2 (a) important and (b) somewhat unprecedented in the history of Free Software licensing. In some ways, the AGPLv2 is a more important document than other rarely used license (like, say, LGPLv2) because it transitions drafting authorities from Affero, Inc. to FSF. Nevertheless, this is also likely why no one has ever seen AGPLv2 in the wild: it's only used for temporary license transition. Theoretically, a clueless licensor *could* use AGPLv2 as a "real license" and slap it on some copyrights, but the downstream would have the right to relicense immediately under AGPLv3 (but, note this also true of any -or-later license!), and most downstreams would do that. The only problem you create by failing to list it is a possible Heisenberg-Principle-like problem for SPDX users who *do* find AGPLv2 in the wild: someone who wishes to write an SPDX file and merely wants to observe AGPLv2 is forced to change the licensing outcome upon observing it by doing the AGPLv3 relicensing as part of the SPDX file-writing. It's really up to SPDX folks to decide if your goal is to be a comprehensive license list or not. If you want to be a comprehensive list, then I'd recommend you should include it. If you only want your list to include licenses that you've seen in use, directly as a explicitly stated license on some known copyrights, then don't include it. That said, I think there are more important exception-based licenses that *are* seen in the wild not currently accommodated by SPDX. That should definitely be higher priority in an event. (I've mentioned this problem over the last few years on other threads.) > wanted to make sure we came to some consensus on this. I'm not really an active SPDX participant, so I don't think you need to include me as part of your consensus in any event. I'm chiming in only as one of the Affero GPL drafters to give my opinion. (And, I didn't draft AGPLv2 anyway, IIRC, Fontana did.) -- -- bkuhn ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
RE: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
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
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
Re: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
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
Re: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
that is an easy fix, as it only impacts the full name and not the short identifiers (which is AGPL-#.0) - thanks Camille for noticing and David and Bradley for the recollections. I will log this for the next version of the SPDX License List. 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? Jilayne Lovejoy SPDX Legal Team lead lovejoyl...@gmail.com On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Wheeler, David A wrote: >> I believe you mean that version 1.0 doesn’t begin with “GNU”. That >> sounds correct; > > I agree, but the details, to my recollection, are different than explained by > David below: > >> I believe Affero had an idea, drafted it (with some help from GNU), and >> then put it out… but as their own license. Later it got folded in as a >> GNU license. Anyway, that’s the history as I (poorly?) remember it. > > Granted, the below is based on my own personal recollection of events, > backed up by my personal email archives. > > I've told the story of the creation of the AGPLv1 a few times: > > http://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale11x/presentations/affero-gplv3-why-it-exists-who-its > (slides at: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/SCALE-2013/agplv3.html ) > > This story is told in the Wikipedia entry as well: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#History > > (but, full disclosure: I've made edits to that Wikipedia entry myself.) > > Anyway, to answer the main question at hand: AGPLv1 was a derivative of > the GPLv2 published by Affero, Inc. (now defunct) with the permission of Free > Software Foundation. See: http://www.gnu.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html > > Thus, I suggest its full name is accurately: "Affero General Public License, > version 1". > > AGPLv2 was also published by the defunct Affero, Inc.: > http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html to make it possible for AGPLv1 works to > transition to the AGPLv3. AGPLv2's full name is thus "Affero General Public > License, version 2". > > In other words, you should therefore not use the "GNU" moniker in the full > names of AGPLv1 and AGPLv2, but *should* use it in the name of AGPLv3, found > at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html > > -- 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
Re: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
Wheeler, David A wrote: >I believe you mean that version 1.0 doesn’t begin with “GNU”. That > sounds correct; I agree, but the details, to my recollection, are different than explained by David below: > I believe Affero had an idea, drafted it (with some help from GNU), and >then put it out… but as their own license. Later it got folded in as a >GNU license. Anyway, that’s the history as I (poorly?) remember it. Granted, the below is based on my own personal recollection of events, backed up by my personal email archives. I've told the story of the creation of the AGPLv1 a few times: http://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale11x/presentations/affero-gplv3-why-it-exists-who-its (slides at: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/SCALE-2013/agplv3.html ) This story is told in the Wikipedia entry as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#History (but, full disclosure: I've made edits to that Wikipedia entry myself.) Anyway, to answer the main question at hand: AGPLv1 was a derivative of the GPLv2 published by Affero, Inc. (now defunct) with the permission of Free Software Foundation. See: http://www.gnu.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html Thus, I suggest its full name is accurately: "Affero General Public License, version 1". AGPLv2 was also published by the defunct Affero, Inc.: http://www.affero.org/agpl2.html to make it possible for AGPLv1 works to transition to the AGPLv3. AGPLv2's full name is thus "Affero General Public License, version 2". In other words, you should therefore not use the "GNU" moniker in the full names of AGPLv1 and AGPLv2, but *should* use it in the name of AGPLv3, found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html -- bkuhn ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
RE: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
David, This will probably require a little more research by the legal team but your recollection is pretty consistent with my understanding. Thanks for the feedback! -Scott Scott Lamons SPDX Business Team From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Wheeler, David A Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:25 AM To: Camille Moulin; SPDX-legal Subject: RE: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 The confusion may be that for at least version 3.0, it *is* the "GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" as documented here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html I believe you mean that version 1.0 doesn't begin with "GNU". That sounds correct; I believe Affero had an idea, drafted it (with some help from GNU), and then put it out... but as their own license. Later it got folded in as a GNU license. Anyway, that's the history as I (poorly?) remember it. The text of of the GNU Affero General Public License seems to be consistent with my recollections: "An older license, called the Affero General Public License and published by Affero, was designed to accomplish similar goals. This is a different license, not a version of the Affero GPL, but Affero has released a new version of the Affero GPL which permits relicensing under this license." --- David A. Wheeler From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org> [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Camille Moulin Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:31 AM To: SPDX-legal Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Hi all, The spdx license list in its latest version (1.19) mentions the "GNU Affero General Public License v1.0", but AFAIKT it's not a GNU license and the full name should just be "Affero General Public License v1.0". Cheers, Camille ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
RE: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
Yes, that's what I meant, version 1 (and also version 2, which is a transition license) is just Affero, while version 3 is a GNU Affero Le 30 sept. 2013 18:24, "Wheeler, David A" a écrit : > > The confusion may be that for at least version 3.0, it *is* the “GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE” as documented here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html > > > > I believe you mean that version 1.0 doesn’t begin with “GNU”. That sounds correct; I believe Affero had an idea, drafted it (with some help from GNU), and then put it out… but as their own license. Later it got folded in as a GNU license. Anyway, that’s the history as I (poorly?) remember it. > > > > The text of of the GNU Affero General Public License seems to be consistent with my recollections: > > “An older license, called the Affero General Public License and published by Affero, was designed to accomplish similar goals. This is a different license, not a version of the Affero GPL, but Affero has released a new version of the Affero GPL which permits relicensing under this license.” > > > > --- David A. Wheeler > > > > > > From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Camille Moulin > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:31 AM > To: SPDX-legal > Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 > > > > Hi all, > > The spdx license list in its latest version (1.19) mentions the "GNU Affero General Public License v1.0", but AFAIKT it's not a GNU license and the full name should just be "Affero General Public License v1.0". > > > > Cheers, > > Camille ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
RE: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0
The confusion may be that for at least version 3.0, it *is* the "GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" as documented here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html I believe you mean that version 1.0 doesn't begin with "GNU". That sounds correct; I believe Affero had an idea, drafted it (with some help from GNU), and then put it out... but as their own license. Later it got folded in as a GNU license. Anyway, that's the history as I (poorly?) remember it. The text of of the GNU Affero General Public License seems to be consistent with my recollections: "An older license, called the Affero General Public License and published by Affero, was designed to accomplish similar goals. This is a different license, not a version of the Affero GPL, but Affero has released a new version of the Affero GPL which permits relicensing under this license." --- David A. Wheeler From: spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org [mailto:spdx-legal-boun...@lists.spdx.org] On Behalf Of Camille Moulin Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:31 AM To: SPDX-legal Subject: GNU [?] Affero General Public License v1.0 Hi all, The spdx license list in its latest version (1.19) mentions the "GNU Affero General Public License v1.0", but AFAIKT it's not a GNU license and the full name should just be "Affero General Public License v1.0". Cheers, Camille ___ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
