Re: Licenses -- webapp users protection

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > IMHO AGPLv3 will be the best license to develop a Free Software _webapp_,
> > to avoid fork and lock of the project. Anyway, when the GNU Herds
> > project be strong, with a lot of users and offers every day, we 
> > could relicense to GPLv3 if it is acctually wanted. [...]
>
> AGPLv3 does not *avoid* fork and lock.  It merely makes some forms of
> it illegal.  If someone evil wants to screw GNU Herds over, they can
> still do it under the AGPLv3 because they're evil and don't care for
> licenses.

I am not sure, anyway, blocking at least someones is good.

> Furthermore, I believe devious people can even do it while complying
> with the licence.



> And in the meantime, using AGPL weakens the project a little.

That can be true, due to people do not understand the advantages of using 
AGPLv3 instead of GPLv3 to license a webapp as this. A webapp to be used by 
free software contributors. Read below [X].



> I'd love to see GNU Herds using a Free (as in near-universally
> acclaimed as Free) Software webapp *today*, not only if it becomes
> strong enough.

What license do you propose? GPLv3?

How many of you  will start to write code tomorrow if we change today to 
GPLv3; and for how long will you write code?


> Also, relicensing usually becomes more work later. 

That is true.


> Anyway, I'm happy to use it and comment, but I've already explained
> why I don't view AGPL as a free software licence, so don't grandstand
> with "you can always code modifications" trolls.

Read here [X]:  I forget to comment that, IMHO,  AGPLv3 will be the best 
license to use in this software due to using AGPLv3 will force the FSF or any 
other hosting to offer the download of the source code to their uses. 
Therefore users of this project will be always sure about what code manages 
its data! That is another key point IMHO.

Davi