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 gnu-agpl-v3-or-proprietary 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 gnu-agpl-v3-cla with [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 issue). Thoughts/objections?
Description: PGP signature