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" but > they > do fit the definition suggested by Ritesh and the definition used on > Wikipedia and the one used by the GNU project. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#LaxPermissiveLicensedS > oftware I started thinking about this after reading the recent LWN article. http://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ A couple years ago, for one of the software that I maintain in Debian, there was an outcry to change its license. It was initially licensed AGPL, and in view of some, seen restrictive. Eventually, it got re-licensed to Apache Software License 2.0. I did not pay much attention then, but I always have believed that the FSF have done a great job in ensuring user freedom. It is a different state now, now that the concept of Free Software has become successful commercially, and many people/organizations have found different ways to circumvent that freedom, if it is conflicting their needs. There was another article I stumbled upon: https://www.blackducksoftware.com/files/webmedia/_webinars/2013_06_25_U nderstanding%20the%20LGPL%20and%20AGPL.pdf This one talks about GNU AGPL, the license that the software I maintain, used earlier. Honestly, I can't see a reason why AGPL would be bad, in the spirit of Free Software. I think the world is changing now. 15 years ago, when I started, GPL was the license. Then, Free Software itself was young and not very successful commercially. Then, over the years, things started changing. People valued user freedom. Many people worked on improving software, sharing changes, benefiting everyone. But as and when Linux and Free Software caught momentum and became (commercially) a giant, most people/organizaitons resisted the idea of giving back, something that the license mandates in a way. I think what Riley said is true in theory, but is it really true in spirit? Take Android userspace. I guess nothing there is open. Even the kernel can have binary blobs, and we, the users, are left out. Even HP, in the LWN article, mentions that. Getting a project to be commercially viable, mandates that it has room to be made proprietary. Otherwise, chances of organization embracing and collaborating on it is zilch. When I briefly worked on Openstack, I signed the CLA. I believe that too is derived of ASL. It turns out most people find GPL type licenses too restrictive these days. Just that who is it "restrictive" for ? But then some positive things to see too. To the best of my knowledge, one of the pressing reasons for the birth of systemd (and not, instead, collaborating on Upstart) was the license and the CLA. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 and think that the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is acceptable for main [2]. But their rationale failed to convince me [3]. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpxGrEMJSVMb.pgp Description: PGP signature
The future of copyleft (was: [A]GPL vs Apache 2)
Ritesh Raj Sarraf writes: > I think the world is changing now. 15 years ago, when I started, GPL > was the license. Then, Free Software itself was young and not very > successful commercially. > […] > Even HP, in the LWN article, mentions that. Getting a project to be > commercially viable, mandates that it has room to be made proprietary. > Otherwise, chances of organization embracing and collaborating on it > is zilch. Conversely, without the obligation written into the license conditions and a credible body to enforce those conditions, the chances of a corporation voluntarily releasing their changes as free software is also very low. Capitalism impels every corporation to seek the removal of any barrier on its operation, without regard for the good of any other party. That alone is sufficient to explain why corporations tend to object to copyleft. Some specific corporations have more specific reasons, of course, but even without those we should expect by the nature of a corporation that they will in general prefer any license to have as few terms restricting them as possible. Copyleft is for the good of society and community as a whole; we should not expect that corporations will of their own accord seek licenses that restrict their actions we consider harmful. We must as a society impose (through legal means) restrictions on corporate abuse of freedoms. > It turns out most people find GPL type licenses too restrictive these > days. Just that who is it "restrictive" for ? The ‘debian-legal’ forum isn't really good for discussing this; it's certainly not special to Debian, it is a matter to be discussed in the wider software community. That said, I can point you to some resources. Bradley Kuhn has a talk presented several times (one recently at LinuxConf Australia 2015) that addresses this in detail. Considering the Future of Copyleft: How Will The Next Generation Perceive GPL? http://lca2015.linux.org.au/schedule/30148/> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA> Stefano Zacchiroli presented at DebConf 2014 on the recent decline of the technology world away from software freedom, and what we must do. Debian in the Dark Ages of Free Software http://debconf14-video.debian.net/video/240/debian-in-the-dark-ages-of-free-software> -- \“I got fired from my job the other day. They said my | `\ personality was weird. … That's okay, I have four more.” | _o__) —Bug-Eyed Earl, _Red Meat_ | Ben Finney
