4 ms·

Is there some AGPL equivalent on top of GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 After reading the rational for v2 for the Linux kernel, Ive always found v3 a bit off putting.

lmm 2y ago
What rationale would that be? I doubt the FSF would write a version of the AGPL designed to let you use DRM to end-run around it if that's what you're getting at (you can always write such a license yourself, but, why?)
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  I mean ... Not to rehash all the v2 VS v3 arguments ... But essentially you only care about the source code being shared and you don't care about tivoization and forcing additional hardware requirements or requirements that "used code" is changeable by endusers. The AGPL's extension just increases any modified code's availability. It's extending the principles behind v2 to networked devices. You gotta share your changes and you can't cleverly avoid it by doing a SaaS instead of selling software/hardware It doesn't extend the v3 principles (which increase end user's rights). That would be to force companies to allow users to modify and run modified code on the networked device/server (which would be the networked equivalent of a anti-tivoization). So the AGPL's idea pairs more naturally with v2 in my opinion
globular-toast 2y ago
The "Tivo-isation" clause? You'd want AGPL but without that bit? That would be strange. I doubt Linus likes AGPL either because, unfortunately, his relationship with the FSF is always going to be sour. He's one of most stubborn people on earth (for better or worse).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  As I say in the neighboring comment, I think the two compliment each other a lot more than v3. Linus would get even more code contributions .. I think he'd be happy
teddyh 2y ago
The AGPL is based on the ”Affero GPL”. The Affero GPL v1 (AGPLv1) was based on GPLv2. (I also disagree with your feelings about the GPLv3, and think you should be using the normal AGPLv3.)

lmm 2y ago

What rationale would that be? I doubt the FSF would write a version of the AGPL designed to let you use DRM to end-run around it if that's what you're getting at (you can always write such a license yourself, but, why?)

contrarian1234 2y ago
I mean ... Not to rehash all the v2 VS v3 arguments ... But essentially you only care about the source code being shared and you don't care about tivoization and forcing additional hardware requirements or requirements that "used code" is changeable by endusers. The AGPL's extension just increases any modified code's availability. It's extending the principles behind v2 to networked devices. You gotta share your changes and you can't cleverly avoid it by doing a SaaS instead of selling software/hardware It doesn't extend the v3 principles (which increase end user's rights). That would be to force companies to allow users to modify and run modified code on the networked device/server (which would be the networked equivalent of a anti-tivoization). So the AGPL's idea pairs more naturally with v2 in my opinion

globular-toast 2y ago

The "Tivo-isation" clause? You'd want AGPL but without that bit? That would be strange. I doubt Linus likes AGPL either because, unfortunately, his relationship with the FSF is always going to be sour. He's one of most stubborn people on earth (for better or worse).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
contrarian1234 2y ago
As I say in the neighboring comment, I think the two compliment each other a lot more than v3. Linus would get even more code contributions .. I think he'd be happy

teddyh 2y ago

The AGPL is based on the ”Affero GPL”. The Affero GPL v1 (AGPLv1) was based on GPLv2. (I also disagree with your feelings about the GPLv3, and think you should be using the normal AGPLv3.)