Proposal: "AGPLv3 or later" license to protect the project software

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> > The 13 section tries to close the ASP loop hole.
>
> Unfortunately, it creates much ambiguity (which I acknowledge is being
> clarified as the related FAQ grows), including an "all hosting users
> may pay infinite data transfer costs" loophole.  So, while it's still
> ambiguous, many free software developers (+me) don't consider it a
> free software licence.  Please don't use it yet.

Even Debian's ftpmasters are accepting AGPL material into main [1], that is 
say, as Free Software in the Debian sense.

  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00061.html


We seems to disagree at this point.  Sincerely, IMHO, for this kind of 
project, (a free software webapp), there is not better license to protect 
_users_ freedom than the AGPLv3.



It is known the GPLv3 applied to webapps can be exploded by Application 
Service Providers (ASP); without giving back to the community and locking to 
its users.

That has already happened:  The software which runs Savannah [2] started from 
the need to escape from the locking process applied to software which 
SourceForge was running on [3]. Such software was licensed under "GPLv2 or 
later".  Do you remember it?

  [2] https://gna.org/projects/savane/
  [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge

IMHO the GPL is not a good license to webapps.  AGPL is better.