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

[VanL]

I should add that I am not saying that anything about the AGPL process was
illegitimate. Bradley and the Affero folks had an idea, and they got it
done. Good for them! It just is not a reasonable or repeatable path for
anyone else.

Thanks,
Van

__________________________
Van Lindberg
van.lindberg at gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 4:57 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure that holding up the drafting process of AGPL v1 is helpful
> here.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The drafting if the AGPL was also essentially a private process. Bradley
> may have consulted with various people, but I remember 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> __________________________
> Van Lindberg
> van.lindberg at gmail.com
> m: 214.364.7985
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 11:14 PM 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200103/4b76c891/attachment.html>