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

[Carlo Piana]

From: "Henrik Ingo" <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> 

> To: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 9:44:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [License-review] AGPL timeline & why cautious processes with
> real-world testing are better (was Re: For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy
> License (Beta 4))

> 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
> |
> 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>

Dear Henrik, 

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. 

AGPLv.3 was, conversely, endorsed. 

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). 

> 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!)

Correct and incorrect at the same time, depending on the meaning attached to "endorsed". 

Cheers, 

Carlo 

> henrik

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

[...] 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200103/09528cb5/attachment.html>