> 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