[Koha] Proposal To Switch Koha's License to GPLv3 and AGPLv3 or AGPLv3

[MJ Ray]

Christopher Nighswonger wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM, MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > [...] It might mean that everyone who sees a page is entitled to
> > the 227Mb source tarball.  Who wants to pay for those downloads?
> 
> Github and the like provide very simple solutions to this problem both with ease
> of administration and ease of cost. AGPLv3 does not specify (see my previous
> response to Lars' post.) Besides, there are hosting plans available that provide
> unlimited bandwidth for very, very few $$$ per month if the FTP route was a
> necessity.

Firstly, it seems unethical to impose even "very, very few $$$ per
month" of extra cost on charitable libraries.

Secondly, this leads to another of what I think is still one of the
Great Unknowns of AGPLv3: if you don't host the source alongside, must
the app go offline if it thinks the source has gone offline?

There are so many of these lawyerbombs around AGPLv3 that I feel the
whole thing is best avoided by sticking with GPLv2, at least until
others have trod on some of the big ones, in the absence of any
pressing need to switch.

> <snip>
> > Fundamentally, AGPLv3 is based on an absurd idea that one can "ensure
> > cooperation with the community" (source: AGPLv3 preamble).  However,
> > cooperation by definition must be voluntary (source:
> > ICA.coop/coop/principles.html ) so legal compulsion is not cooperation.
[...]
> It appears that any form of licensing is an attempt to ensure
> cooperation of some sort among some people.  *All* licensing is, in
> fact, some form of coercion, period. The unfortunate fact of life is
> that there is somebody, somewhere who will do wrong even if you will
> not. It would be wonderful if it were otherwise. The we would not need
> licenses... or laws for that matter. [...]

I don't see how that's true, unless "cooperation of some sort" means
something other than cooperation, such as mere trading.
Free software licensing is usually just setting out the terms of trade,
but AGPLv3's clod-handed attempts to force public sharing go beyond it.

Laws and licences do not prevent anyone doing wrong.  I'm sure all of
us are quite capable of breaching a copyright licence without much work.
If anyone is hoping that adopting AGPLv3 will prevent bad people
refusing to share progress with the community, you are doomed to fail.

So what is the burning desire for AGPLv3?

> > So may we postpone the rest of this discussion to post-3.2.0?
> 
> As I stated in my original proposal: We are already very active atm, and now is
> the time to at least begin discussing this change.

I am disappointed by this desire to press ahead with holding a
discussion of such a complex topic at such a busy time.  It will limit
participation and likely leave the discussion incomplete.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op