Comments on: Closing open source loopholes

By: 451 CAOS Theory » Is the AGPL half-empty, or half-full?

451 CAOS Theory » Is the AGPL half-empty, or half-full? — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:06:01 +0000

[...] transfer the collaborative and community benefits of GPL to the software-as-a-service model. AGPLv3 closes a loophole that many would have preferred to see addressed by the GPLv3. However, because the ASP [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » Who will follow Funambol’s open source SaaS steps?

451 CAOS Theory » Who will follow Funambol’s open source SaaS steps? — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:22:49 +0000

[...] to see whether other open source SaaS players follow Funambol’s lead. What will be the impacts of closing open source software’s [...]

By: Free Software Project Grants

Free Software Project Grants — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:29:42 +0000

How to Find Free Government Grant Money…

Finding free government grant money can be time and labor intensive. Identifying the specific agencies and their purposes and specific subject areas can involve a lot of research work. Ads that claim the process is easy usually involve some sort of fra…

By: AGNUcius

AGNUcius — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:50:16 +0000

A copyright holder may CHOOSE any license for that work.

Talking about code that corporations such as Google CHOOSE not to release is meaningless.

The point with the GNU GPL which is only sharpened with GNU GPLv3 and GNU AGPL, is:

IF the copyright holder CHOOSES to “Free” (Open) their Source, then using a GNU GPL license guarantees that code cannot be used *against* them by proprietary competitors.

This defense mechanism is only strengthened by later GPLs, so to “stay with the GPL and enjoying proprietary SaaS business models” for instance, is only applicable to those that are building on the code of others WITHOUT releasing.

IF a copyright holder CHOOSES to defend their work, the GPLv3 and AGPL are a stronger defense. This has nothing to do with people that are not CHOOSING to release code.

By: Roberto Galoppini

Roberto Galoppini — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:29:35 +0000

FSF left the door open for such a long time.. and it was simply to late to close it now. Too many stakeholders, too many interests. Affero is not going to get a broad acceptance by the market, they can stay with the GPL and enjoying proprietary SaaS business models.

By: lifepeers » Closing open source loopholes

lifepeers » Closing open source loopholes — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:56:41 +0000

[...] You can read the full story here [...]

By: Boycott Novell » Ending the Exploitation of Developers by Novell, Microsoft and Others

Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:40:51 +0000

[...] GPLv3 is on the right track. Yesterday we provided an example in the form of one project that has already adopted the new Affero GPLv3. The 451 Group has just blogged about the adoption and the role of GPLv3. While GPLv3 originally set out to tackle the issue of software patents, another loophole emerged with the Microsoft-Novell partnership a year ago, adding some urgency and significance to the issue. To avoid passing its promise not to pursue patent-based legal action onto all Linux users, Microsoft gave its promise directly to SUSE Linux customers. GPLv3 grandfathered the clever deal, but again, the license would prevent a similar arrangement today. [...]

By: Spudwiler

Spudwiler — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:08:02 +0000

If this license was such a great idea, then why did SugarCRM go for GPLv3. Because it “really doesn’t matter”. Open source is marginally about the license. That’s all.