AGPL != Awesome GPL

http://www.davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html

by jchrisa • 16 years ago

11 29 16 years ago

Um, that just means that you can't distribute something under a modified form of the AGPL, and still call the license the AGPL...

davisp12• 16 years ago

Are you willing to stake your lunch on that interpretation? I read it as "no modifications allowed" as opposed to "modifications require a new name not confusable with the AGPL". I would support the second, but the first interpretation is what actually motivated opening my editor.

jrockway2• 16 years ago

Isn't everything a modification of everything else then? I "modified" your comment by deleting it and writing this one.

_delirium• 16 years ago

There's an FSF FAQ on this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

It seems they're mostly trying to avoid a license-dilution problem, where there'd be 50 incompatible versions of the GPL floating around confusing everyone.

swixmix2• 16 years ago

FTA: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

This is clearly in reference to the LICENSE DOCUMENT and not the LICENSE ITSELF.

Forgive the shouting, but this situation seems childish anyway.

davisp12• 16 years ago

Its quite childish. That's where we derive the LOLs

davisp12• 16 years ago

Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation?

I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no training in law.

davisp12• 16 years ago

The entire post was to point out my confusion. And there aren't 50 versions of the GPL. But there are many FOSS licenses. And compatibility is speech from a high horse. GPL advocates often worry about "license compatibility" when the GPL is incompatible with any other license.

I can't release MIT licensed code that links against a GPL'd library. That's a pretty huge incompatibility if you ask me.

jmillikin3• 16 years ago

  I can't release MIT licensed code that links against a GPL'd library. That's a pretty huge incompatibility if you ask me.

Of course you can. The belief that the GPL is "viral" or can somehow infect unrelated software is spread by groups opposed to widespread creation of GPL'd software.

The GPL is a copyright license. It applies only to cases covered under copyright, eg, distribution of the original and derived works. This means you can release code under any license that links to GPL'd code. If you create a derived work (eg, compiled binary) from both original works, you'd need to abide by the terms of both licenses.

For example, say you have an application under the MIT license, and you'd like to support a GPL'd library. The resulting license tree would look like this:

  MIT (app code)    GPL (library code)
   |                 |
   -------------------
           |
          GPL (app binary)

nzmsv2• 16 years ago

Contemporary GPL is a terrible name. Things are only contemporary for a limited time (by definition). What do you do after the Internet is obsoleted? Rename the new version The New Contemporary GPL?

jchrisa2• 16 years ago

I think he said "Contemplorary" which is where the LOLs come from.

nzmsv2• 16 years ago

Ah, I need to learn to read :)

janl• 16 years ago

BWAHAHAHA :D

jchrisa2• 16 years ago

Jan found the LOLs

davisp12• 16 years ago

Were they that hard to find?

camccann• 16 years ago

I can't say I care for his proposed license. I recommend instead considering the WTFPL: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

The author of the WTFPL was the Debian Project Leader for a while and his site has a tribute to goatse. Make of that what you will...

davisp12• 16 years ago

The WTFPL also made me LOL. But the TPL was written by a friend so I lean towards that one. I think both are firmly planted in the LOL world so its only a matter of preference of what flavor of LOL that you prefer.

jmillikin3• 16 years ago

People should stop inventing their own vanity licenses; there are enough popular, legally-sound options available for any reasonable licensing schema.

If you want to ensure everybody who receives your code can modify it, use the GPL or LGPL.

If you want to disclaim your rights to the extent allowed by law, use the BSD 3-clause or X11 (aka MIT) licenses. These are one step above the public domain, and are legal even in jurisdictions which do not recognize the public domain.

Do not use: some license a non-lawyer thought up in a fit of pique after mis-reading somebody else's license. This applies to the author's TPL, the infamous WTFPL, and similar poorly-considered licenses.

davisp12• 16 years ago

These vanity licenses are LOLs licenses. Those of us that are actually concerned with such things actually do use a license of our choice. I tend to prefer the X11/MIT because its short enough I understand it. But occasionally I use the TPL for small things just to make people contemplate.

AGPL != Awesome GPL

Related Stories