On Thu, 08 May 2014 17:45:11 -0500
Tom Marble <tmarble(a)info9.net> wrote:
On 03/28/2014 11:07 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:08:00 -0700
> Luis Villa <luis(a)lu.is> wrote:
>> Note that a quasi LAGPL need not be less restrictive than AGPL; it
>> could serve a similar purpose merely by resolving the uncertainty
>> you point out about the scope of AGPL.
> I have had similar thoughts. This is all related to the "epiphany"
> bkuhn confessed to experiencing at (a?) Bertucci's in Cambridge,
> Mass. on Saturday, 22 March 2014, at approximately 21:00 EDT, in
> the course of a conversation about the notion of LAGPL with,
> primarily, Chris Webber and me.
> Apart from all that, I intend to respond substantively to Tom's
> message in due course.
Oops, due course ought to have been reached. Fear not; we are still in
I realize we are all quite busy.
I recently became aware of some old concerns about the DSFG-freeness
of the AGPL and thought it might be apropos to this discussion
(and potential fixes in copyleft-next).
I've been following that thread too. I tuned out some of it though
as it seemed to be focused on fanciful "loophole" hypotheticals.
For the record: while I did attend LibrePlanet I was not a party
to the "epiphany" and do not know what it was about.
I am having trouble remembering it now, but I think it had to do with
the connection between distribution (and receipt) of a binary in
and the ease of determining what CCS is.
I remember bkuhn saying that he thought the expansiveness of the
Corresponding Source definition in *GPLv3 was superior to the GPLv2
definition of 'complete source code'. copyleft-next has a definition
that is more in spirit with the GPLv2 version, though it has some
features not contained in either.