AGPL, was RE: [vworld-tech] Modern MUD server design

[Brian Crowder]

Is there, perhaps, a URL describing this proposed change?

I'd like to give it to someone to freak out about.  :)

Alistair Riddoch wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 05:25:13PM -0600, Patrick Dughi wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>>I do know that lots of people are pushing for the GPLv3 to treat
>>
>>networked
>>
>>>users the same, but this AGPL isn't it.
>>
>>	I had heard of, and was watching the development of GPLv3.  In
>>fact, I was directing some questions to licensing at gnu.org, but it
>>appears that this is sort of an electronic hurdy-gurdy, and you never
>>know what comes out, or who's going to answer.  The most recent replies
>>came from an individual who was ~STRONGLY~ pushing for everyone to use
>>the AFERO, and claimed it would be the next (v3) GPL.  I was confused
>>because I was pretty sure it wasn't, but he was very insistent that it
>>is/was v3.  
>>
>>	Apparently, the licensing at gnu.org has no sort of regulation or
>>control, it's apparently somewhat of a personal opinion hotline that's
>>redirected to individuals who've worked with/for the FSF (like finding
>>GPL violations).   
>>
> 
> 
> I have contacted the FSF's full time license engineer about this issue.
> licensing at gnu.org is all read by him, and is replied to by him and a volunteer
> who is well versed in GPL and licensing issues.  Opinions you get when
> communicating with licensing at gnu.org are as far as is possible the official FSF
> position.
> 
> While AGPL is not actually what will become GPLv3, GPLv3 will be similar in
> spirit, and will probably be worded in such a way as to require MUD or vworld
> servers to provide a copy of the source code to their users if the server code
> is under the terms of the GPLv3.
> 
> Al
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vworld-tech mailing list
> vworld-tech at cubik.org
> http://lists.cubik.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vworld-tech