Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Take Android userspace. I guess nothing there is open. Even the kernel > can have binary blobs, and we, the users, are left out. A correction: Android userspace is mostly Free Software and there are open Android apps available, which

Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:34 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > > > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible > with > > as many open-source licenses as possible. > > The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive"

Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:35:43 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: [...] > Honestly, I can't see a reason why AGPL would > be bad, in the spirit of Free Software. [...] Personally, I see reasons why the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is bad: see my own analysis [1]. Please note that the FTP Masters disagree with me

Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible with > as many open-source licenses as possible. The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" but they do fit the definition suggested by Ritesh and the

Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:58:49 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hi, > > If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure > freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a > commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license. >