I agree, I tend to recommend the latest version of the AGPL together
with "or later" nowadays. My future projects which do practical works
will also be under such license. ;)
Lyberta writes:
> Given how quickly SaaSS is taking over the world, should we start
> recommending
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 07:52:42AM +0200, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
>
> From the legal and technical side (not the practical side where someone
> simply ignores the license, which can happen with GPL as well) what does
> it not solve exactly? I would not be surprised if there were some issues
>
On 09/19/2017 10:52 PM, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:56:23PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 09/19/2017 11:50 AM, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:08:00PM +, Lyberta wrote:
Given how quickly SaaSS is taking over the world, should we
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:56:23PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 11:50 AM, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:08:00PM +, Lyberta wrote:
> >> Given how quickly SaaSS is taking over the world, should we start
> >> recommending releasing software under AGPL by
On 09/19/2017 11:08 AM, Lyberta wrote:
> Given how quickly SaaSS is taking over the world, should we start
> recommending releasing software under AGPL by default? Even if you wrote
> a simple thing intended to be run locally, someone may put it on the
> server, make SaaSS with it and then add
Given how quickly SaaSS is taking over the world, should we start
recommending releasing software under AGPL by default? Even if you wrote
a simple thing intended to be run locally, someone may put it on the
server, make SaaSS with it and then add private modifications.
signature.asc