On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams <cl...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your > arguments (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just > the ad hominem arguments. Thanks. > > I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It would be > irresponsible for me to present such arguments. > While flushing all said with 'you misunderstand AGPL' is a responsible thing to do. > I can suggest, however, that you can either read the license text > or contact licens...@fsf.org before spreading more FUD. > I don't believe I have spread any FUD. 1. AGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility). 2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license ( http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html) 3. AGPLv3 is more restrictive thus distributing the derivate works must be licensed under AGPLv3 (e.g. GPL is hereditary) (f.e. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html) So a move from SleepyCat license to GPL based one is in fact problematic and cannot be done lightly (and without upstream software author consent). Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>
