
AGPL != Awesome GPL - jchrisa
http://www.davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html
======
_delirium
There's an FSF FAQ on this: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#ModifyGPL>

It seems they're mostly trying to avoid a license-dilution problem, where
there'd be 50 incompatible versions of the GPL floating around confusing
everyone.

~~~
swixmix
FTA: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."

This is clearly in reference to the LICENSE DOCUMENT and not the LICENSE
ITSELF.

Forgive the shouting, but this situation seems childish anyway.

~~~
davisp
Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed
to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody
interpretation?

I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT
NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no
training in law.

~~~
akrito
> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I
> able to create a parody interpretation?

I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows
parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues>

~~~
jrockway
Yes, exactly. The license clause can only be enforced because of copyright
law, and fair use is allowed for by the copyright law. The rights given to you
by the law supersede anything a license says, because without that law, the
license would be completely meaningless.

(In theory, the reason EULAs work is because when you run the program, you are
copying it from disk to RAM. This is why they are believed to be very shaky,
as copyright law does not specifically consider copying from disk to RAM
inside a black box to be "copying".

The GPL is on firmer ground, because it covers copying for distribution to
other people. That is a situation that copyright law is specific about.)

~~~
davisp
LOL, WHUT?

This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the
little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the
solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of
view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to
have an actual opinion.

------
jmillikin
People should stop inventing their own vanity licenses; there are enough
popular, legally-sound options available for any reasonable licensing schema.

If you want to ensure everybody who receives your code can modify it, use the
GPL or LGPL.

If you want to disclaim your rights to the extent allowed by law, use the BSD
3-clause or X11 (aka MIT) licenses. These are one step above the public
domain, and are legal even in jurisdictions which do not recognize the public
domain.

Do not use: some license a non-lawyer thought up in a fit of pique after mis-
reading somebody else's license. This applies to the author's TPL, the
infamous WTFPL, and similar poorly-considered licenses.

~~~
davisp
These vanity licenses are LOLs licenses. Those of us that are actually
concerned with such things actually do use a license of our choice. I tend to
prefer the X11/MIT because its short enough I understand it. But occasionally
I use the TPL for small things just to make people contemplate.

------
camccann
I can't say I care for his proposed license. I recommend instead considering
the WTFPL: <http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/>

The author of the WTFPL was the Debian Project Leader for a while and his site
has a tribute to goatse. Make of that what you will...

~~~
davisp
The WTFPL also made me LOL. But the TPL was written by a friend so I lean
towards that one. I think both are firmly planted in the LOL world so its only
a matter of preference of what flavor of LOL that you prefer.

------
nuclear_eclipse
Um, that just means that you can't distribute something under a modified form
of the AGPL, and still call the license the AGPL...

~~~
davisp
Are you willing to stake your lunch on that interpretation? I read it as "no
modifications allowed" as opposed to "modifications require a new name not
confusable with the AGPL". I would support the second, but the first
interpretation is what actually motivated opening my editor.

~~~
jrockway
Isn't everything a modification of everything else then? I "modified" your
comment by deleting it and writing this one.

~~~
davisp
I propose an experiment where we introduce Levenshtein to a lawyer and see
who's head explodes first.

------
nzmsv
Contemporary GPL is a terrible name. Things are only contemporary for a
limited time (by definition). What do you do after the Internet is obsoleted?
Rename the new version The New Contemporary GPL?

~~~
jchrisa
I think he said "Contemplorary" which is where the LOLs come from.

~~~
nzmsv
Ah, I need to learn to read :)

------
janl
BWAHAHAHA :D

~~~
jchrisa
Jan found the LOLs

~~~
davisp
Were they that hard to find?

~~~
jmelloy
I found 'em.

