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.
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:
> 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.
-- 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
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?
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
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.
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:
> 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.
-- 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
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. :-)
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:
> 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:
> > 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.
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp://code.google.com > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
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:
> 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: > > 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:
> > > 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.
> > -- > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found > athttp://code.google.com > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
-- 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
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:
> 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:
> > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > > 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.
> > > --
> > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > athttp://code.google.com > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp://code.google.com > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> 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: > > 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:
> > > 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: > > > > 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:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > -- > > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found > > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > -- > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found > athttp://code.google.com > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
-- 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
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:
> 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:
> > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > > 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:
> > > > > 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:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > > --
> > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > athttp://code.google.com > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp://code.google.com > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
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:
> 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:
> > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > > 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:
> > > > > 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:
> > > > > > 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:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > > > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > > > --
> > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > --
> > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp://code.google.com > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> 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:
> > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > > 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:
> > > > > 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:
> > > > > > 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:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > > > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > > > --
> > > > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > > > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found
> > > athttp://code.google.com > > > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> > --
> > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp://code.google.com > > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
> 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
> > 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 athttp://code.google.com > Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com
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.
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.
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
> 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
-- 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
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?
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
> 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
-- 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
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?
----- Original Message -----
From: google-code-hosting@googlegroups.com <google-code-hosting@googlegroups.com>
To: Hosting at Google Code <google-code-hosting@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri Apr 11 10:19:28 2008
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?
|
