Talk:Affero General Public License

Free Software Controversy ?

Should there not be any discussion on this page to indicate that there is some controversy over whether this license is considered free software? If you search the net, you will find that many do not consider it free. Some samples: [1], [2], [3]

CorenSearchBot is wrong

The CorenSearchBot is wrong. I have not copied contents from http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html. I have copied it from the GNU Lesser General Public License page, which is part of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPetazzoni (talk • contribs) Nov 19, 2007 18:31

new page GNU Affero General Public License

I've started a page called GNU Affero General Public License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPetazzoni (talk • contribs) Nov 20, 2007 02:34

Two pages for Affero license?

I am not completely sure why we have separate pages for the old AGPL and the new AGPLv3 that was recently released by the FSF. We should figure out if we want to merge them. I am not completely sure myself how to start that process, but I wanted to mention it here. -- bkuhn 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge done

I did the merge. I left the other newer article, the REDIRECT. Lentower (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the GNU Affero General Public License 3.0 Preamble’s penultimate paragraph, and revert the merge. --AVRS (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I understood this before I did the merge. The distinction is not notable, so two articles are not needed. It is far better for Wikipedia and it's readers, for there to be one article that explains the evolution of the concept, and the evolution of the license(s). We're an encylopedia, not a legal glossary. There are many editors who would propose making this merged article, a section of the GPL article, for the same reasons. Work on making the merged article, the best WP article it can be. Lentower (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should still be called “GNU Affero General Public License”, because that’s what it describes, and that is what seems to be more notable now. --AVRS (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page for the other article that is now a REDIRECT for why i did the merge this way. The merged article is findable by both titles, describes both licenses. Perhaps the descriptions can be improved. Few but a lawyer or a GNU partisian will see a meaningful or WPnotable difference between them. Lentower (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Article

This is a fantastic article and one of the best resources on the AGPL available. Thanks to everyone who has helped contribute to this! —mako๛ 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AGPL vs GNU AGPL - same or not?

«Note that GNU Affero General Public License is not the same legal document as the Affero General Public License, though they are quite similar in intent and effect.»

Either that is wrong, or the whole article needs to be rewritten. The page is titled "AGPL", the heading section is all about "GNU AGPL" but ends with the mentioned sentence, and the remainder of the article seems to say both are the same. If someone could clear it up and correct it... thanks. ;) --portugal (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the AGPL is essentially being replaced by the GNU AGPL, seeing as how Affero has updated their AGPL precisely to make it compatible with the GNU AGPL. The title probably should be renamed to GNU Affero General Public License. Mahanga^Talk 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very confusingly-written article. I have made some changes designed to clear up some of the confusion between the old AGPL and the FSF's GNU AGPLv3 published in 2007. Much more work is needed here. Rfontana (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made a number of changes to this article to make it clearer and less confusing. Rfontana (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

Sorry, Rfont, this is still confusing as hell. The intro realllly needs a simple summary of what it is. The fact that the FSF suggests people use it isn't nearly enough. I'm trying to use this in some software..but I'm not really sure why. Miserlou (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Application service provider loophole." Que??! Miserlou (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Loophole

If nobody is sure what the loophole is, how could they have a licence exist to stop it? --99.250.177.248 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Opt-in download source vs. Opt-out

Technically speaking, version 1 sounds like it forbids opting-out of having a "download source" link:

if...user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version

But version 3 sounds like it actually forces one to actively program a "download source" link, if one doesn't already exist:

modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version

Is it really so? Does it mean v3 users - if their modifications include network interaction - aren't allowed to use the linkless original source as-is? Must they build a whole sub-program to present the source? Again, I'm only talking about programs that don't have such a link to begin with. -79.176.200.211 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AGPL2

The table should be expanded to include the transitional license. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)