3 ms·

I'll have to look at those network use clauses. I've always found proprietary, BSD, and AGPL to have coherent philosophies. The GPL, on the other hand, has al

I'll have to look at those network use clauses. I've always found proprietary, BSD, and AGPL to have coherent philosophies. The GPL, on the other hand, has always felt to me to be much more of a mishmash of whatever Stallman likes or dislikes.

dllthomas 13y ago
I'm confused - it's the GPL that fails to make a distinction between the REST API and the consultant. I'd thought you were criticizing that distinction as being arbitrary.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  Yes, that's what I think and what I thought I'd been saying. What of what I've said indicates otherwise?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I see contradiction in: 1) The AGPL is philosophically well founded, the GPL is arbitrary. 2) The AGPL enforces an arbitrary distinction, the GPL does not.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - thatthatis 13y ago
      I think I've found the confusion. I was still talking about the GPL in my second comment. I see why that was confusing given that you'd explicitly added the AGPL into the discussion, sorry. I might have better stated it as "I agree the AGPL removes the tension, I think the AGPL is philosophically coherent. But the FSF still primarily pushes the GPL. [transclude prior comment]"
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Hm, I still don't see how that resolves it. You say "How, and where, can you draw the line between those things?", when the AGPL does precisely that and the GPL refuses to. I'm not trying to criticize, here, I'm trying to understand...
        thatthatis 13y ago
        I'm criticizing the GPL as inconsistent because it draws lines haphazardously. That it is ok with the API but not with the distribution feels arbitrary and inconsistent to me. The AGPL is elegantly precise - anything you do to the code becomes public. The bad is elegantly precise - anything you do is fine. GPL is complicated and inelegant - some things are fine while their near equivalent actions aren't. Edited to clarify
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "Anything you do becomes public" is an inaccurate description of the AGPL. That consultant can keep things private.

dllthomas 13y ago

I'm confused - it's the GPL that fails to make a distinction between the REST API and the consultant. I'd thought you were criticizing that distinction as being arbitrary.

thatthatis 13y ago
Yes, that's what I think and what I thought I'd been saying. What of what I've said indicates otherwise?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I see contradiction in: 1) The AGPL is philosophically well founded, the GPL is arbitrary. 2) The AGPL enforces an arbitrary distinction, the GPL does not.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    I think I've found the confusion. I was still talking about the GPL in my second comment. I see why that was confusing given that you'd explicitly added the AGPL into the discussion, sorry. I might have better stated it as "I agree the AGPL removes the tension, I think the AGPL is philosophically coherent. But the FSF still primarily pushes the GPL. [transclude prior comment]"
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Hm, I still don't see how that resolves it. You say "How, and where, can you draw the line between those things?", when the AGPL does precisely that and the GPL refuses to. I'm not trying to criticize, here, I'm trying to understand...
      - thatthatis 13y ago
        I'm criticizing the GPL as inconsistent because it draws lines haphazardously. That it is ok with the API but not with the distribution feels arbitrary and inconsistent to me. The AGPL is elegantly precise - anything you do to the code becomes public. The bad is elegantly precise - anything you do is fine. GPL is complicated and inelegant - some things are fine while their near equivalent actions aren't. Edited to clarify
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "Anything you do becomes public" is an inaccurate description of the AGPL. That consultant can keep things private.