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

Fri Jan 3 08:44:06 UTC 2020

Thanks Bradley for contributing your historical perspective on the Affero
license versions.

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.

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:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031206085040/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

<quote>
GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses
The following licenses are free software licenses, but are not compatible
with the GNU GPL:

The Affero General Public License
    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.
</quote>

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!)

henrik

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:14 AM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>

-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200103/d631654d/attachment-0001.html>