[Koha] AGPL 3 objections and replies

[Thomas Dukleth]

[The other part of my reply can be seen under a more appropriate subject
at http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-July/024580.html .]

Reply inline:


On Wed, July 14, 2010 01:01, david at lang.hm wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Thomas Dukleth wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, July 13, 2010 20:26, david at lang.hm wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Thomas Dukleth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> 3.4.  DATA.

[...]

>> See the document which MJ Ray had cited as one example.  Who does that
>> server really serve? / by Richard Stallman. -
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html .
>> Richard is thinking most particularly of collaborative network programs
>> such as facebook.
>>
>> See the Franklin Street Statement,
>> http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/ , and
>> http://autonomo.us/ generally.  Autonomous was set up to explore network
>> service issues and develop ideas which FSF and the GNU project could
>> adopt
>> in future after they have been carefully thought through.
>
> The type of database needed for a distributed facebook is very different
> from what is needed to support a traditional database application.

There are peer to peer distributed SQL compatible databases such as
CouchDB and MongoDB.

I have stated that distributed databases may never be efficient enough for
Koha relative to the client-server model.  However, we should consider the
possibility that both a client-server model and a distributed model can
co-exist in the same program.  I think that the distributed model may be
helpful first in the case of consortia or union catalogues.

>
> the fact that the FSF is talking about this is very different from what I
> read into your statement (which seemed to imply that there was something
> concrete that Koha should consider switching to, if not now, then at least
> in the relativly near future)

There are concrete distributed databases which exist as I cited above.  I
am not suggesting that we switch database models for Koha but merely that
we should be aware of possibilities that we might add.  Switching may be a
reasonable option at some possible future point.

[...]

> The FSF can make suggestions, but they are actually _doing_ very little in
> terms of providing code nowdays. some of the code they are providing is
> still central to a system,
> but the fiasco that was the GPL3 proposals
> process showed that this is more a matter of habit and convienience for
> the core developers who really maintain most of those pieces than it is
> actual contributions from the FSF.

FSF had not been relying upon their small staff to write GNU project code.
 GNU project developers are diverse set of developers in which each of the
GNU projects have had a set of developers who have contributed over time.

Perhaps you are complaining that GNU/Linux  systems work too well.  FSF
recognises that the task of the GNU project to provide software freedom to
users has been accomplished for the core Unix tools and much else.  FSF is
encouraging developers to take interest in free software for collaborating
and sharing information using a distributed model to replace remote
network software.

I am confident that much better comment systems with appropriate free
software licenses will be available the next time FSF engages in a
significant set of license draft revisions.  The question is whether Koha
should use AGPL 3 without waiting fifteen years for next FSF license
drafting process to produce GPL 4 and AGPL 4.

[...]


Thomas Dukleth
Agogme
109 E 9th Street, 3D
New York, NY  10003
USA
http://www.agogme.com
+1 212-674-3783