

Diaspora Considering Abandoning AGPL? - mjgoins
http://identi.ca/notice/50961474

======
rick888
I hope they do abandon it, because I know I won't go anywhere near the source
until they do.

The AGPL contains this little gem:

"if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all
users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network
server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating
copying of software"

Anyone that accesses your website is entitled to the source code you are
using.

~~~
theBaba
"Anyone that accesses your website is entitled to the source code you are
using." - isn't this the point of the AGPL?

~~~
rick888
"isn't this the point of the AGPL"

Yes, it's my point. I won't use a license that has such an asinine
restriction.

------
rcfox
Ignoring the hearsay for a moment:

Indicating copyright ownership has nothing to do with the licensing. The
people who wrote the software own the copyright. Being AGPL, or whatever else,
defines how other people can use the software.

~~~
jancona
The question about Diaspora is about their requiring assignment of the
copyright. That is, the project requires contributors to give away their
ownership of what they wrote, so that the project owns it and can re-license
at will.

------
logic
Personally, I think it would be a shame. You're only on the hook if you want
to modify their reference implementation, and aren't interested in sharing
your changes with the community.

Write your own implementation under whatever license you want (and once
they're a little farther along with actual protocol documentation, that ought
to give you everything you need to make it happen), or share nicely. I'm not
sure how that's a problem.

