Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
AGPL license
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 1 - 25 of 33 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)   Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Rhywek  
View profile  
 More options Nov 25 2007, 10:20 am
From: Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Nov 25 2007 10:20 am
Subject: AGPL license
Hi.

Can I host a project on Google's Project Hosting, if it's licensed
under AGPL? It's one of FSF's licenses. I really need AGPL instead of
GPL, as my project is a server-side software.

It would be nice if Google could add AGPL to the list of available
licenses.

My project is protected by AGPL, but I've selected GPL in the
interface, due to the lack of AGPL. Please let me know whether I
can keep my project if it's AGPL or whether I should remove it.

The license is available here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html

Best regards,
Rhywek.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Nov 25 2007, 1:54 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:54:49 -0700
Local: Sun, Nov 25 2007 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
Hi Rhywek;

In fact we do not support the AGPL on code.google.com. We are actively
trying to fight the proliferation of licenses that are considered open
source and the AGPL both has very little market share and has not been
certified as being open source by the OSI.

It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com
by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one
thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer
is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.

Thanks.

Chris

On Nov 25, 2007 8:20 AM, Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rhywek  
View profile  
 More options Nov 25 2007, 2:52 pm
From: Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Nov 25 2007 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
On Nov 25, 7:54 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:

> It is also not okay to host anAGPLcovered program on code.google.com
> by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one
> thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer
> is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.

OK, thanks for the info. I'll remove the project as soon as possible.

Could you reveal whether there are plans for adding any affero-style
license in a foreseeable future?


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Nov 25 2007, 4:38 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:38:13 -0700
Local: Sun, Nov 25 2007 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
We have no current plans to do so. If AGPL adoption is high enough to
warrant it, we'll revisit. The question is this: Who will propose the
AGPL to the OSI? :-)

Chris

On Nov 25, 2007 12:52 PM, Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 7:54 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:
> > It is also not okay to host anAGPLcovered program on code.google.com
> > by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one
> > thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer
> > is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.

> OK, thanks for the info. I'll remove the project as soon as possible.

> Could you reveal whether there are plans for adding any affero-style
> license in a foreseeable future?

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rhywek  
View profile  
 More options Nov 26 2007, 5:06 pm
From: Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Nov 26 2007 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
On Nov 25, 10:38 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:

> We have no current plans to do so. IfAGPLadoption is high enough to
> warrant it, we'll revisit. The question is this: Who will propose theAGPLto the OSI? :-)

Free Software Foundation is the highest authority when it comes to
free software and its licensing. So FSF asking OSI to approve their
licenses would be like my father asking me how to make children.

Those few variations of GPL released by FSF should be really supported
by Google's project hosting as soon as they are released. Here's why:
Hosting providers will allow AGPL projects if AGPL adoption is high.
But for the adoption to get high developers must first be able to make
their projects AGPL. But to do so, hosting providers must allow AGPL
projects. And the cycle closes.

Best regards,
Rhywek.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Nov 26 2007, 5:10 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:10:05 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 26 2007 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
No need for the lecture, I submitted the gpl to osi myself and I
understand the politics. It's easy to get worked up with this stuff,
but this is also incredibly unproductive for GPL/AGPL proejcts to take
this approach to other open source licenses as tehre is a -lot- of
code under apache and bsd that can and has enrich gpl/agpl projects.

Chris

On Nov 26, 2007 2:06 PM, Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rhywek  
View profile  
 More options Nov 27 2007, 5:01 am
From: Rhywek <Rhy...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Nov 27 2007 5:01 am
Subject: Re: AGPL license
On Nov 26, 11:10 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:

> No need for the lecture, I submitted the gpl to osi myself and I
> understand the politics. It's easy to get worked up with this stuff,
> but this is also incredibly unproductive for GPL/AGPLproejcts to take
> this approach to other open source licenses as tehre is a -lot- of
> code under apache and bsd that can and has enrich gpl/agplprojects.

I'm sorry if I was too direct when expressing my personal opinion. It
really wasn't supposed to sound like a lecture. I just wanted to
contribute to the discussion with my personal viewpoint. :-)

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
balupton  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2007, 1:03 pm
From: balupton <balup...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 30 2007 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
I would also like AGPL to be available for google code projects. How
can we help make this happen? If having myself make a osi request as
well would help, what is the link?

Thanks,
- Ben

On Nov 27, 7:10 am, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2007, 6:31 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:31:36 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 30 2007 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license

It would help, but what really matters is that the license is adopted. So
far, we haven't seen much of it. (Unless things have changed substantively
in the last month)

Chris

On Dec 30, 2007 10:03 AM, balupton <balup...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
jsinclair@gmail.com  
View profile  
 More options Jan 31 2008, 5:44 pm
From: "jsincl...@gmail.com" <jsincl...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
What kind of adoption would be high enough for you to consider adding
it as an option?  We love our Google project hosting (especially with
the improved svn code browsing features) but we are considering
switching to the AGPL and really don't want to switch project hosts. :-
(

Justin

On Dec 30 2007, 3:31 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Jan 31 2008, 6:58 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:58:00 -0800
Subject: Re: AGPL license

More than the mpl? Approaching the popularity of the mit?

Chris

On Jan 31, 2008 2:44 PM, jsincl...@gmail.com <jsincl...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
jsinclair@gmail.com  
View profile  
 More options Feb 16 2008, 1:39 am
From: "jsincl...@gmail.com" <jsincl...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Feb 16 2008 1:39 am
Subject: Re: AGPL license
Just as an update for those interested,  the AGPL v3 license has been
submitted to OSI for approval (by Funambol).  Whether it will be
approved or not remains to be seen.

On Jan 31, 3:58 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Roturgo  
View profile  
 More options Feb 18 2008, 5:17 pm
From: Roturgo <rotu...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2008 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
I'd like to throw in my vote for the AGPL v3.  I have a web service
project that I would like to host at Google Code, but not offering
this license is a show stopper for me.

On Feb 16, 12:39 am, "jsincl...@gmail.com" <jsincl...@gmail.com>
wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
jsinclair@gmail.com  
View profile  
 More options Mar 14 2008, 5:11 pm
From: "jsincl...@gmail.com" <jsincl...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Mar 14 2008 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
Another update -  The AGPL v3 has been approved by the OSI. (http://
www.opensource.org/licenses/agpl-v3.html)

I also read it has been adopted by WaveMaker:  http://www.wavemaker.com/products/license.html

That said,  I think we may still have a ways to go before Google deems
AGPL worthy for their project hosting.

On Feb 15, 11:39 pm, "jsincl...@gmail.com" <jsincl...@gmail.com>
wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
billiejoex  
View profile  
 More options Mar 24 2008, 11:42 pm
From: billiejoex <billiej...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Mar 24 2008 11:42 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
I'd like to see it added too since I'm currently working on an app
similar to what the OP has developed.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
fabricapo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 31 2008, 11:51 am
From: fabricapo <fabric...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Mar 31 2008 11:51 am
Subject: Re: AGPL license
BTW, I wrote a post on this at
http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2008/03/google-blocking-agpl-in-goo....

Let's all keep pushing, I am sure Google eventually will give up (or I
just hope so ;-)

   fabrizio


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
 More options Mar 31 2008, 9:36 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:36:27 -0700
Local: Mon, Mar 31 2008 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
I responded. :-)

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:51 AM, fabricapo <fabric...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  BTW, I wrote a post on this at
>  http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2008/03/google-blocking-agpl-in-goo....

>  Let's all keep pushing, I am sure Google eventually will give up (or I
>  just hope so ;-)

>    fabrizio

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
defcon  
View profile  
 More options Apr 9 2008, 7:56 pm
From: defcon <defcon...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Apr 9 2008 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
This is truly unfortunate for the opensource community
Check this out:
http://www.clipperz.com/users/marco/blog/2008/04/04/clipperz_not_welc...

On Mar 31, 6:36 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Greg Stein  
View profile  
(1 user)  More options Apr 10 2008, 8:14 am
From: "Greg Stein" <gst...@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:14:20 -0700
Local: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 8:14 am
Subject: Re: AGPL license
We said right from the beginning of this thread: popularity *and*
OSI-approval. It now has the latter, but not the former.

What is unfortunate for the community is the *spin* that we are
against the AGPL for business reasons. No, we just choose not to make
it one of the licenses available on Google Code. There are dozens and
dozens of others that are more popular, but we don't make available
either. The spin is marking us The Bad Guy, but we're doing exactly
what we said months ago, and we're continuing to follow our original
goal for project hosting: encourage the reduction of license
proliferation. That has been one of our goals since our launch in July
2006, and we don't intend to lose sight of it now.

Cheers,
-g


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael R. Bernstein  
View profile  
 More options Apr 10 2008, 6:08 pm
From: "Michael R. Bernstein" <mich...@fandomhome.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license

On Apr 10, 5:14 am, "Greg Stein" <gst...@google.com> wrote:

> We said right from the beginning of this thread: popularity *and*
> OSI-approval. It now has the latter, but not the former.

> What is unfortunate for the community is the *spin* that we are
> against the AGPL for business reasons. No, we just choose not to make
> it one of the licenses available on Google Code. There are dozens and
> dozens of others that are more popular, but we don't make available
> either. The spin is marking us The Bad Guy, but we're doing exactly
> what we said months ago, and we're continuing to follow our original
> goal for project hosting: encourage the reduction of license
> proliferation. That has been one of our goals since our launch in July
> 2006, and we don't intend to lose sight of it now.

Fair enough. What is the threshold number of AGPL-licensed projects
"in the wild" that will constitute enough popularity for inclusion of
GNU AGPL as an option in Google Code? Chris has mentioned a few
somewhat fuzzy standards here and elsewhere, but no definitive number.

- Michael


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
(1 user)  More options Apr 10 2008, 6:34 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:34:37 +0200
Local: Thurs, Apr 10 2008 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
Basically the answer is when I, Fitz, Greg or the team think it is
popular enough. I know you guys think we don't like it for nefarious
reasons, but what you're missing is we dislike -all- new licenses that
are unpopular. They lead to bifurcation of the open source development
world and that is a high price to pay.

I personally think the AGPL is deeply flawed, and I've commented on
that on my own blog and on others, but that really -doesn't- matter.
If the AGPL gets to be popular, like lgpl or bsd popular, than we'll
certainly offer it as an option on code.google.com, but until then,
it'll be a judgment call on our part. One you might not agree on, but
that's okay.

Chris

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Michael R. Bernstein

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael R. Bernstein  
View profile  
 More options Apr 11 2008, 11:37 am
From: "Michael R. Bernstein" <mich...@fandomhome.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 11 2008 11:37 am
Subject: Re: AGPL license

On Apr 10, 3:34 pm, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:

> Basically the answer is when I, Fitz, Greg or the team think it is
> popular enough. I know you guys think we don't like it for nefarious
> reasons, but what you're missing is we dislike -all- new licenses that
> are unpopular. They lead to bifurcation of the open source development
> world and that is a high price to pay.

Chris, please don't attribute motivations to me that you don't have
evidence for.

Generally speaking, I actually agree with your position, except that
license proliferation per se isn't really the larger part of the
problem, which is the combinatorial complexity of license
compatibility. Of course, to a first approximation, license
proliferation is a pretty good proxy for this, given that many
licenses aren't written with maximum compatibility in mind. Also,
license proliferation does directly introduce confusion into the
license selection process, but that's a relatively minor effect.

> I personally think the AGPL is deeply flawed, and I've commented on
> that on my own blog and on others, but that really -doesn't- matter.

I have my own problems with the AGPL, but for what I want to
accomplish, it's the best license available. However, that really
doesn't matter either.

> If the AGPL gets to be popular, like lgpl or bsd popular, than we'll
> certainly offer it as an option on code.google.com, but until then,
> it'll be a judgment call on our part. One you might not agree on, but
> that's okay.

Umm. Actually, I'm fine with it being a judgement call. But I'd at
least like some clarity as to at what point you'd *start* considering
it. I don't think leaving the lower bound of consideration undefined
is going to be helpful to you, but that is your privilege. You will
get increasing numbers of "are we there yet?" queries over time,
though.

However, given the definition you just gave for a 'certainly'
boundary, here is my attempt to put a solid number on it:

There are 19k projects in SourceForge WWW/HTTP category. Of these, 13k
are GPL, 1.3k are BSD, and 2k are LGPL. Four are AGPL (but 15 out of
all projects). However, I am also aware of three GNU AGPL projects
that are inside SF marked as "Other/Proprietary License", and there
may be others.

Meanwhile, on Google Code, I see 72 projects labeled GPL, 35 BSD, and
16 LGPL. This doesn't seem right, so I use general search instead, and
get 351 GPL, 189 BSD, and 92 LGPL. Still seems low. How many hosted
projects are there, anyway?

Another issue is that few of the new projects that I find interesting
use SF for project hosting. Instead, these projects tend to get
started on Google Code (which forbids AGPL) or some combination of
Trac and Subversion (frequently self-hosted). I don't have a way of
doing the same kind of GPL/LGPL/BSD licensing census on those.

What I *can* do, is try to compile a list of all AGPL projects I can
find.

So, here's the question: How many AGPL projects in the wild (which
will typically be new web app projects) would meet your "lgpl or bsd
popular" standard?

- Michael


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
(1 user)  More options Apr 11 2008, 12:06 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:06:45 +0200
Local: Fri, Apr 11 2008 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
That sounds like a good idea , regardless of what we do with the info.
I'll get a review of license use on code.google.com to get some good
boundary data. If you want a firm number, then when AGPL passes BSD +
Apache 2.0, I will unconditionally add the license to code.google.com

But that's an absurdly high number. Until then, it's gut feeling about
popularity of the license.

Chris

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Michael R. Bernstein

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael R. Bernstein  
View profile  
 More options Apr 11 2008, 1:19 pm
From: "Michael R. Bernstein" <mich...@fandomhome.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 11 2008 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license

On Apr 11, 9:06 am, "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com> wrote:

> That sounds like a good idea , regardless of what we do with the info.
> I'll get a review of license use on code.google.com to get some good
> boundary data. If you want a firm number, then when AGPL passes BSD +
> Apache 2.0, I will unconditionally add the license to code.google.com

> But that's an absurdly high number. Until then, it's gut feeling about
> popularity of the license.

Thanks Chris, but I need you to disambiguate that a bit.

Are you saying that when AGPL-in-the-wild passes BSD+Apache *on
code.google.com* you will unconditionally add the license? Or were you
using some other measure?

- Michael


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris DiBona  
View profile  
(5 users)  More options Apr 11 2008, 1:29 pm
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdib...@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:29:26 -0700
Local: Fri, Apr 11 2008 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: AGPL license
You need me to disambiguate for you? I think you need to go find my employment documents and find out where it says I work for you.

Chris


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 1 - 25 of 33   Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google