For approval: GNU Affero General Public License

[Stefano Maffulli]

On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:49 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Fine for you.  If the AGPLv3 were truly general-purpose, it would *be*
> the GPLv3.


Maybe we should go back to basics here and try to get an agreement on  
what 'special purpose' means in OSI License Proliferation Category.

 From what I understand it means that the license exists to address a  
specific need of the writer of the license.  NASA needs to have  
specific language for US gov lawyers to be happy, Open Standard Group  
needs specific language to prevent loss of integrity.  I guess that  
cecill and EUPL would fit into this category as well, for reasons  
similar to those of US gov.

I fail to see the logic behind thinking that GPLv3 is a general  
purpose while AGPLv3 is not.  Apache2 closes the sw patents loophole  
that BSD/MIT licenses leave open, but it's not a 'special purpose  
license'.  GPLv3 addresses internationalization of its language, and  
it's not a special purpose license either.

cheers
stef

--
Stefano Maffulli
Funambol Community manager