[License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4))

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

McCoy Smith wrote today:
>    As far as I can tell, AGPLv1 never got on the OSI list ... AGPLv3 was
>    submitted in January 2008 AGPLv3 was finalized in November 2007 (so it
>    was submitted to OSI two months after its drafting was completed).  It
>    was approved in March 2008 ... So AGPLv3 went from finalization to OSI
>    approval in a mere 4 months.

Starting the clock on Affero GPL at the third-party 2008-03 list submission
doesn't reflect OSI's diligence in past decisions.  OSI leadership was aware
of AGPLv1. (I know, because I talked extensively with OSI directors during the
years AGPLv1 was the only AGPL.)  No one even considered submitting it
officially because -- as a careful and thoughtful license drafting authority
-- FSF experimented in real world scenarios with a (possibly silly) new
copyleft idea first for years before declaring it official.  Heck, I admit I
was on the wrong side of history on this one: I advocated for the FSF to
release a GPLv2.2 in 2003 with the Affero clause in it.  The FSF didn't like
the idea, precisely because the clause was too novel, and needed time to see
if developers felt the clause brought them and their users' software freedom.

So instead, AGPLv1 was deployed as a GPLv2 fork, used by projects, but not
officially endorsed by the FSF nor the OSI.  This was a good thing.  Looking
back now, I see that I was the fool who was rushing in by asking for the
Affero clause to become standard merely two years after its invention and
first promulgation.

This caution is similar to what Fontana (et al) have done with copyleft-next.
copyleft-next has many novel copyleft ideas worth trying.  But, no one has
submitted it to OSI yet, even though it's years old now and is in use by
projects.  I wrote more about this last year in:
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003828.html>

And, during all that AGPL real-world experimentation time, no one, as Luis
claimed, "screamed" at AGPLv1'd projects that I'm aware of.

Luis wrote today:
>> OSI and many allies will scream bloody murder (arguably with reason!)

BTW, Luis, I find that phrase "scream bloody murder" offensive.  We shouldn't
be comparing a license choice, even one we detest, to murder.  Such phrases
can also be triggering for those who have experienced murder of a friend or
family member.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/