tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

distinguishing between actual AGPL3 vs proprietary relicensing?

Seeing the discussion about db6 and AGPGL3 reminded me that there are
two styles of programs under AGPL3 and that pkgsrc doesn't distinguish
between them.

One is programs that are really under that license for philosophical
reasons.  These programs tend to be intended to be run on web servers
with remote users.  Examples are Diaspora* and Mediagoblin.  These
either accept contributions under the AGPL3 (the inbound = outbound
style), or require assignment to FSF or similar, with a reciprocal
covenant to only distribute as Free Software.

Another is programs thar are available under AGPL3 but which someone
offers licenses under other terms for a fee.  These programs are not
necessarily aligned with the point of AGPL3, such as db6.  Such programs
do not accept contributions under AGPL3, typically have corporate
ownership, and typically require a CLA so that they can relicense the
community contribution under a proprietary license.

Becuase the intent of these two uses is very different, I think it may
make sense to label them differently in pkgsrc.  (I am basically
comfortable with the first and not with the second, and I think the
fraction of people in that camp is significant.)

To me, the key points are having to agree to a CLA (that doesn't have a
covenant to only distribute under Free licenses) and proprietary
relicensing.  For users, this translates into people that actually want
you to follow the AGPL3, vs. people that have an incentive to sell you a
license on other terms.

So I wonder about adding a license file


that just adds

  [This program appears to also be available under a proprietary license.]

to the front.

That way, users can add gnu-agpl-v3 but not the other to
ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, if that's how they feel.

Or perhaps



  [This program requires a CLA that permits some but not all parties to
  redistribute under a proprietary license.]

but the cla route seems trickier (even though it's really the same


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index