Re: [pragmatique] [Licence-questions] GPL3 vs AGPL3 relicens…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: ng0
To: pragmatique
Subject: Re: [pragmatique] [Licence-questions] GPL3 vs AGPL3 relicensing compability
Catonano transcribed 3.0K bytes:
> 2017-06-12 17:39 GMT+02:00 ng0 <ng0@???>:
> > I'm currently looking into the possibility of a new license
> > based on the AGPL3.
> > This is halfway into a conversation, but maybe some of you
> > are interested in this reply.
> > Many more to follow, GNU and SFConversancy will be involved
> > at some point too.
> >
> > Polina Malaja transcribed 4.0K bytes:
> >
> > > However, the GNU project (and we agree) strongly advises against
> > > creating modifications of existing licences in order to avoid mere
> > > proliferation of different Free Software licences, and the possibility
> > > of their further incompatibility with GPL-family licences.
> >
> I would take this advice seriously
> License fragmentation is conterproductive for software freedom
> I was struck by this speech by Eben Moglen

> _______________________________________________
> pragmatique mailing list
> pragmatique@???

lynX and myself talked about this yesterday. It's the standard
disclaimer of legal advice.

It's no sporadic decisions, we've been thinking of drafting
this license for a long time and hope that the AGPL3 will
eventually just be extended with this (and make our license

Of course people want an explanation, which will happen
after the first draft version of the license has been released.

Why this license? What will we use it for?
Well definitely not for the parts which end up in Guix.
It's intended to be used for software which can exists on its
own and where the reproducibility factor makes sense (ie: can
already be achieved, is proven to be reproducible).

I don't think it is counterproductive. Sometimes a group of people
needs to come up with their modification of a license to push
the change of another existing license forwards.
OpenPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588