@jwildeboer I was a little confused by his comment, because I didn't think mithro (Tim Ansel) worked for google. So I tracked down the issue in question. I found his later explanation even more disturbing and disappointing. Don't license AGPL because we *might* want to try to get funding from Google in the future. Wow...
@cstanhope I had the link to the issue in my previous tweet. https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/105193363110691512
@jwildeboer Sorry I missed that! We had the same reaction. smh
(I had assumed you deliberately didn't link to it, so I did the same.)
@jwildeboer EUPL closes the network use loophole in a similar manner, EUPL is not viral, though. It's sort of "LAGPL".
As I understand free/libre implies forever-open but not the other way.
So there could be a forever-open license which for instance forbids the use of the code. It would be open but not free.
Does go along with your argument?
@paoloredaelli In any sense that copyleft licenses are viral, so are proprietary ones, and often more.
@t0k @benjaminpaikjones @rysiek @Steinar yeah. Every few years some folks come along saying we need new words. But I never really understand why. We have all the terms we need (permissive, non-permissive, weak/strong copyleft) since years. They are well defined and mostly understood in good ways. But I guess some people just WANT new terms to create confusion. Divide et impera ;)
@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones The notion of derivation is very much a copyright thing (and very fuzzy in copyright law). Like I said, the relationship between hardware and copyright is complicated and putting requirements on derivation may be moot if copyright is not in play to begin with. So it's nowhere near as binary as you present it. In a lot of cases the honest answer is "I don't know".
@clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @t0k @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones Yes, unless those designs would involve ASICs. Come to think of it, FPGAs are an interesting edge case here, again. Basically, in hardware you cannot solely rely on copyright because the "maker's mark" is not always there. So you end up with more exotic IPR that typically requires (some form of) registration (patents, semiconductor topologies). Which doesn't work too well with open hardware either. So, it's very, very messy.
@t0k @clacke @rysiek @jwildeboer @Steinar @benjaminpaikjones I haven't really looked at the last version yet. At first cursory glance I don't like it from a legal clarity viewpoint. It is very copyright-oriented, but without making clear what "property rights" are in play. Unlike the GPL which makes it abudantly clear that it is a copyright license first and foremost, and if necessary also a patent license.
@jwildeboer It’s worth noting that Debian had a discussion about accepting AGPL software in their main repository and that they didn’t see any issue at the time. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=17;bug=495721
@jwildeboer As of today, many programs installed on my computer right now are using this license so it seems like it’s still all good!
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name