<html><body><div style="font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><b>From: </b>"Henrik Ingo" <henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi><br></div><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>To: </b>"License submissions for OSI review" <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, January 3, 2020 9:44:06 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))<br></blockquote></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks Bradley for contributing your historical perspective on the Affero license versions.</div><br><div>FWIW, I agree it was wise of the FSF not to force the AGPL provision into the GPL itself. The GPL is and was one of the most popular free software licenses on the planet, and users should be allowed some expectation of continuity. So introducing the AGPL as a new license instead allows projects to opt in to the new provision. It seems to me this is exactly what the CAL would offer as well, since it doesn't force any existing licenses to adopt its terms, and in the beginning will be used by just 1 project.</div><br><div>Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "not officially endorsed by the FSF". If I look at a 2003 snapshot of the GNU list of free software licenses, Affero GPL is already added to that list: <br></div><div><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20031206085040/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20031206085040/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><br><div><quote></div><div>GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses<br>The following licenses are free software licenses, but are not compatible with the GNU GPL:<br><br>The Affero General Public License<br> The Affero General Public License is a free software license, copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the GNU GPL version 2, with one additional section that Affero added with FSF approval. The new section, 2(d), covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks. The Affero GPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL version 2 because of section 2(d); however, the section is written so that we can make GNU GPL version 3 upward compatible with the Affero GPL. That is why we gave our approval for Affero to modify the GNU GPL in this way. <br></div><div></quote></div></div></blockquote><div>Dear Henrik, <br></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>I think there is a big difference between being "endorsed" (hence, promoted, favorably advised for) and being included in a list of "approved" Free Software licenses, something of a detached, objective nature, much alike what happens here in OSI. Therefore Bradley is accurate here, from my standpoint, though I can't speak for FSF.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>AGPLv.3 was, conversely, endorsed.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>As far as I am aware, the only license whose name is not prepended by "GNU" and somewhat endorsed is the Apache license for non copyleft licensed works (and public domain, perhaps).<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div>I (we?) tend to think of this list as the FSF counterpart to OSI's list of approved licenses. (And when things go well, I would expect to find a FOSS license listed on both.) It seems to me that contrary to your narrative, the AGPL was indeed endorsed by the FSF as a free software license already in 2003. (And enthusiastically received by many of us, I remember!)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct and incorrect at the same time, depending on the meaning attached to "endorsed".<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Cheers,<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Carlo<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>henrik<br></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:14 AM Bradley M. Kuhn <<a href="mailto:bkuhn@ebb.org" target="_blank">bkuhn@ebb.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">McCoy Smith wrote today:<br>
> As far as I can tell, AGPLv1 never got on the OSI list ... AGPLv3 was<br>
> submitted in January 2008 AGPLv3 was finalized in November 2007 (so it<br>
> was submitted to OSI two months after its drafting was completed). It<br>
> was approved in March 2008 ... So AGPLv3 went from finalization to OSI<br>
> approval in a mere 4 months.<br><br>
Starting the clock on Affero GPL at the third-party 2008-03 list submission<br>
doesn't reflect OSI's diligence in past decisions. OSI leadership was aware<br>
of AGPLv1. (I know, because I talked extensively with OSI directors during the<br>
years AGPLv1 was the only AGPL.) No one even considered submitting it<br>
officially because -- as a careful and thoughtful license drafting authority<br>
-- FSF experimented in real world scenarios with a (possibly silly) new<br>
copyleft idea first for years before declaring it official. Heck, I admit I<br>
was on the wrong side of history on this one: I advocated for the FSF to<br>
release a GPLv2.2 in 2003 with the Affero clause in it. The FSF didn't like<br>
the idea, precisely because the clause was too novel, and needed time to see<br>
if developers felt the clause brought them and their users' software freedom.<br></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>[...]<br></div></div></body></html>