5 ms·
AGPL != Awesome GPL
- camccann 17y agoI can't say I care for his proposed license. I recommend instead considering the WTFPL: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ The author of the WTFPL was the Debian Project Leader for a while and his site has a tribute to goatse. Make of that what you will...
- davisp 17y agoThe WTFPL also made me LOL. But the TPL was written by a friend so I lean towards that one. I think both are firmly planted in the LOL world so its only a matter of preference of what flavor of LOL that you prefer.
- nuclear_eclipse 17y agoUm, that just means that you can't distribute something under a modified form of the AGPL, and still call the license the AGPL...
- davisp 17y agoAre you willing to stake your lunch on that interpretation? I read it as "no modifications allowed" as opposed to "modifications require a new name not confusable with the AGPL". I would support the second, but the first interpretation is what actually motivated opening my editor.
- _delirium 17y agoThere's an FSF FAQ on this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL It seems they're mostly trying to avoid a license-dilution problem, where there'd be 50 incompatible versions of the GPL floating around confusing everyone.
- swixmix 17y agoFTA: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." This is clearly in reference to the LICENSE DOCUMENT and not the LICENSE ITSELF. Forgive the shouting, but this situation seems childish anyway.
- davisp 17y agoIts quite childish. That's where we derive the LOLs
- davisp 17y agoAlso, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation? I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no training in law.
- akrito 17y ago> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation? I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues
- davisp 17y agoWhats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.
- nzmsv 17y agoContemporary GPL is a terrible name. Things are only contemporary for a limited time (by definition). What do you do after the Internet is obsoleted? Rename the new version The New Contemporary GPL?
- janl 17y agoBWAHAHAHA :D
- jmillikin 17y agoPeople should stop inventing their own vanity licenses; there are enough popular, legally-sound options available for any reasonable licensing schema. If you want to ensure everybody who receives your code can modify it, use the GPL or LGPL. If you want to disclaim your rights to the extent allowed by law, use the BSD 3-clause or X11 (aka MIT) licenses. These are one step above the public domain, and are legal even in jurisdictions which do not recognize the public domain. Do not use: some license a non-lawyer thought up in a fit of pique after mis-reading somebody else's license. This applies to the author's TPL, the infamous WTFPL, and similar poorly-considered licenses.
- davisp 17y agoThese vanity licenses are LOLs licenses. Those of us that are actually concerned with such things actually do use a license of our choice. I tend to prefer the X11/MIT because its short enough I understand it. But occasionally I use the TPL for small things just to make people contemplate.