Which comes to question: what license is BQ under?
This one seems as appropriate for us, also it might give us a "marketing"
push.
What do you think?
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: Platform Independent Linux List! [mailto:LINUX-L (at mark) LISTS.UFL.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gavin Baker
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:22 AM
To: LINUX-L (at mark) LISTS.UFL.EDU
Subject: FSF releases AGPL for Web services
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(Related to my presentation at GatorLUG from October)
The Free Software Foundation has released the GNU Affero GPL. The AGPL is
based on GPLv3, but has an additional clause to entitle users who interact
with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that
program.
There was an earlier version of the Affero GPL, but this is the first
version endorsed/maintained by FSF and the first version with GPL
compatibility. According to the press release, "The FSF recommends that
people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be
run over a network."
http://www.fsf.org/agplv3-pr
Thanks to those who asked questions / told me I was wrong at the LUG
meeting. I was wrong. Long story short: it's a Bad Idea to trust anyone with
your data unless you can get it out (via batch export or API) and unless you
can take it elsewhere (FOSS). The AGPL is the best tool yet to protect the
latter.
Happy holidaze,
- --
Gavin Baker
http://www.gavinbaker.com/
gavin (at mark) gavinbaker.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHRo25tLXQdLhFpekRAqokAJ9yPBOOYv6NBCrOdUN/TIoYNMa1tQCgiIvy
IQG1zw+2iTyNbwpeyptfZMU=
=frk9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----