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

[Chris Cormack]

On 11 May 2010 12:29,  <david at lang.hm> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010, Chris Nighswonger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>
>>> As for moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3, what is the reason for making the move?
>>> is there code that you want to merge (either way) with a GPLv3 project?
>>>
>>
>> Please read my original proposal for the reasoning behind the move.
>
> I've gone back and dug it up from the archives.
>
> What is the code that you want to merge that is under the AGPL?
>
>>> It's already been posted that you use code from a GPLv2 project, so you
>>> would have to get that project to move to GPLv3 (or 2+) to continue using
>>> their code.
>>>
>>
>> Koha is currently licensed under GPLv2 or later with the exception of
>> OpenNCIP. This is not a blocker, but rather a "bug" to be "fixed." There are
>> no show-stoppers to the  move to GPLv3/AGPLv3.
>
> If this is the case, all you need to do is to eliminate any GPLv2 code and
> merge one piece of AGPL code and the result can only be distributed under
> the AGPL.
>
> This will de-facto change the code from the current GPLv2 license (due to
> the inclusion of GPLv2 only code) to AGPLv3 (due to the inclusion of
> AGPLv3 only of AGPLv3+ code)
>
> If this is the reason, then you are really not considering GPLv3 as a
> license.
>
>>> Is the code that you will get from moving to GPLv3 worth the loss of the
>>> code that you currently get from GPLv2?
>>>
>>
>> We will loose know code afaik in such a move. Please cite examples.
>
> Others have posted some existing GPLv2 code that would need to be
> replaced.
>
>
>>> The FSF claims that the GPLv3 is in the same spirit as the GPLv2, but many
>>> programmers disagree (which is why many codebases remain GPLv2)
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the specific behavior that you think is happening under the GPLv2
>>> that you think will be blocked by the GPLv3? I am not a contributer, just a
>>> lurker (not even running the program, yet..) but I have not seen any
>>> behavior being discussed that would be blocked by the GPLv3.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Again, please re-read my original proposal for the why and wherefore.
>
> From the message I found in the archives
> (http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-May/023803.html), it sounds
> like you believe that moving to AGPLv3 will cause significant additional
> code to be contributed that would not be contributed without that license.
>
> However, you don't point at what code would be contributed, or who would
> be contributing code under that license but not under the existing license
> (or a plain GPLv3 license).
>
> I think that such info would be important for such a license change.
>
> Is there another message that I should be looking at?
>
> The mere fact that the Koha community is growing is not a good reason for
> changing the license. Personally I would consider the fact that the
> community is growing to be a good indication that the existing license is
> good and not mess with it.
>
>
Hi David

It's interesting who comes out of the woodwork when licensing comes
up, it seems people have strong opinions on it, even people only
tangentially related to the project.
I think you are missing a lot of context to this discussion, it has
come up quite a few times in the past, and the fact is the growing
trend worldwide of Software as a Service, and the ghettoisation of
code and users that can result from that is what is behind (at least
for myself) this discussion.
I think that users should have the right to have the source code of
the software they are using, and I believe that this freedom is one of
the 4 freedoms the GPL was designed to protect.
I think that these freedoms outweigh some nebulous security concern,
and that the important thing is that users are protected from lockin.
If you have a better way to achieve this than APGL3, or GPLv3 + an
additional clause, I'm all ears.

Chris