3 ms·
Actually, no, it says on the source page that it is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License Version 3.0, which is significantly different than GPLv
by paulv 18y ago
Actually, no, it says on the source page that it is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License Version 3.0, which is significantly different than GPLv3. So much so that it even has a different name.
What's wrong with free software, anyway?
- zzzmarcus 18y agoNothing is wrong with free software, I just think that if you're going to make it free, make it free, don't limit it like this: "It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server." I realize the Affero GPL3 and GPL3 are different. They both have the same limitation so I shortened the name in my comment to simply "GPL3". I understand the reasoning behind the clause, but I don't agree with it for a number of reasons.
- paulv 18y agoYou really shouldn't comment about GPLv3 if you haven't bothered to read it. GPLv3 says NOTHING even _remotely_ similar to what you quoted. In fact, the only real difference between GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is that AGPLv3 has exactly the requirement that you quoted above! I don't care if you like GPLv3 or AGPLv3, but at least get your facts straight.
- zzzmarcus 18y agoActually... I have read it and that was my understanding of it. If I've misunderstood it then I'm open to corrections, I'm not a lawyer. This illustrates yet another reason I dislike the GPL3--understanding it requires reading not only the license itself but also reading explanations and interpretations. This is made apparent by the thousands of search results leading to content that attempts to explain the license.