<div dir="auto"><div>I am not sure that holding up the drafting process of AGPL v1 is helpful here.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Apologies if I get any of the dates wrong, but if I recall correctly, during the time when the AGPL was drafted, Bradley was working for the FSF ( or had just recently finished working with them). Bradley also maintained a close official relationship with the FSF even after he left - he just resigned as a director last year.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">This means that during the time when the AGPL was drafted, Bradley had extraordinary access to the decisionmakers at the FSF, and used that access to advance the AGPL.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">The drafting if the AGPL was also essentially a private process. Bradley may have consulted with various people, but I remember</span> when the AGPL came out, and I don't remember it being a public process - certainly not to the same extent that the CAL has been refined in public. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So regardless of whether the AGPL was "accepted" or "endorsed" by the FSF, it benefitted from Bradley's official relationship with the FSF. It seems unlikely that anyone not-Bradley could have drafted a license and got it on the FSF's list of recognized Free Software licenses.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is significant because the inclusion of the AGPL on the FSF's list of recognized Free Software licenses was essential to its growth and use as a license.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In short, it not reasonable to hold it up the AGPL process as a model for others. The "go slow" model that Bradley is proposing was based upon the unique circumstances of Bradley's employment with the FSF and his ability to bypass the sort of process that the CAL is going through and get his license on the list of FSF-recognized licenses.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">__________________________<br>Van Lindberg<br><a href="mailto:van.lindberg@gmail.com">van.lindberg@gmail.com</a><br>m: 214.364.7985</div><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 11:14 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <<a href="mailto:bkuhn@ebb.org">bkuhn@ebb.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;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>
<br>
So instead, AGPLv1 was deployed as a GPLv2 fork, used by projects, but not<br>
officially endorsed by the FSF nor the OSI. This was a good thing. Looking<br>
back now, I see that I was the fool who was rushing in by asking for the<br>
Affero clause to become standard merely two years after its invention and<br>
first promulgation.<br>
<br>
This caution is similar to what Fontana (et al) have done with copyleft-next.<br>
copyleft-next has many novel copyleft ideas worth trying. But, no one has<br>
submitted it to OSI yet, even though it's years old now and is in use by<br>
projects. I wrote more about this last year in:<br>
<<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003828.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003828.html</a>><br>
<br>
And, during all that AGPL real-world experimentation time, no one, as Luis<br>
claimed, "screamed" at AGPLv1'd projects that I'm aware of.<br>
<br>
Luis wrote today:<br>
>> OSI and many allies will scream bloody murder (arguably with reason!)<br>
<br>
BTW, Luis, I find that phrase "scream bloody murder" offensive. We shouldn't<br>
be comparing a license choice, even one we detest, to murder. Such phrases<br>
can also be triggering for those who have experienced murder of a friend or<br>
family member.<br>
--<br>
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him<br>
<br>
Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:<br>
<a href="https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>