paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
What do you think about releasing all our 3.2 improvements under AGPL ? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html
It's a bad idea. See list archives for my past explanations (I am offline due to network problems as I write this) but I'll remix them here:
Summary: the AGPL makes mandatory to release source code even if your software is an hosted one.
That's simply not true. The hoster only has to offer it to their users. So unless one of those users is a developer or wants to be helpful to all other Koha hosters, it doesn't help the project. Also, there are workarounds which can reduce the usefulness of those required releases while still complying with the AGPL (which I think are noted later in the email). At best, anything gained that way will be abandonware. Plus, there are the drawbacks: practically, the uncertainty of a new and relatively untested license and whether submission to koha.org would satisfy the AGPL; while secondly, it goes against the values of autonomy and independence which are important for cooperatives. AGPL is based on the false idea that one can "ensure cooperation" but that's not cooperation - it's coercion.
The AGPL is compatible with Koha, as Koha is GPL v2 *or later*
That's what most of the code says, but not what the About Koha screen says. Are we sure? [...]
I think it would be a good idea. Publishing the source code is not enough (we all know that getting 400 000 lines of code without hint, help and a git repo would be useless), but at least, that would clarify our motives.
The motive it says most clearly to me is "we do not trust koha developers to collaborate" and so I ask you to reconsider. I know the current uncertainty stings, but this is grasping at straws for something to do and grabbing a lit fuse. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op