Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication. Thank you. :) > <quote who="Josh Triplett" date="Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:02:20PM -0800"> > >>There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL: >> >>1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all. This is >>certainly an open issue. I lean towards saying that it is >>theoretically possible for such a clause to be free but that no such >>clause has been written in an existing license. I think the most >>likely way to achieve a free clause of this type would be to base it >>on the GPL and phrase it in such a way as to impose exactly the same >>clauses which apply to distribution, along with all the proposed >>alternatives. > > Would you be willing to work on drafting an example of such language > for the GPLv3? Gladly. See my previous response to you elsewhere in this thread for specific text, as well as answers to several of the other points you raised in this mail. I've also provided that specific text as a comment to that clause on the GPLv3 site (though since I sent it via email, it may take some time to appear). - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature