shicon的部落格

A new interrogation near Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO, Funambol, discussing his company's finding to re-release software using the AGPL or else of the originally-released computer code exploitation HPL. Fabrizio too discusses the ASP ambiguity and its impact on the instigate point union.

Question: When Funambol first free software, it was released beneath your own legal instrument - the Honest Public License. How does the AGPL diverge from the HPL?

Capobianco: The HPL fundamentally other one writing to the GPL v2 license, to address the ASP ambiguity. AGPLv3 does the aforementioned item to the GPL v3 instrument i.e. it is based on the more new GPL v3 a bit than HPL someone supported on the older GPL v2. But conceptually, some licenses were planned to code the ASP ambiguity. Funambol was entangled in the account of AGPLv3, switched to it as in a while as it was released, and had it OSI-approved.

Question: Why did the joint venture discovery it obligatory to exchange licenses? In other words, why cut to the AGPL and see it done the OSI agreement process?

Capobianco: When Funambol introduced the HPL, we said freedom from the origin that as shortly as at hand was an OSI-approved interpretation of the official document that addressed the ASP loophole, we would electric switch to it. This is because nearby is a interest more or less the growth of too umpteen opposing yet equivalent unfold wellspring licenses puzzling inhabitants. So that is why we short of to have the AGPLv3 accepted by the OSI and why we switched to it the 2nd it became OSI approved, because the planetary genuinely does have rather a few dissimilar unfastened spring licenses and by virtuousness of mistreatment an OSI agreed license, it cuts fluff on the cipher of copyrighted vendor-written licenses.

Question: How do you answer to those in the media or another commercial enterprise observers who say the AGPL doesn't suitably address the ASP Loophole?

Capobianco: I imagine the talk in the media is not if the AGPL satisfactorily addresses the ASP Loophole. That is a fixed. It does. The questioning is if terminal the ASP Loophole will be a payment for sympathetic rootage in pandemic or not, or if the AGPL will boundary acceptance of accessible foundation software package by enterprises. I one-sidedly do not reckon nearby is an put out. Enterprises are not stiff by the ASP Loophole, because it is targeted to family running software as a work to the public. Enterprises that run services internally do not have to make public their changes to the general public. It is a dead letter.

Question: Some say that rather than requiring service providers to modify the attitude that builds on embark on cause subsidise to the community, the league should only industry to build thing like what the branded service provider is offering. What do you give attention to of that approach?

Capobianco: I deem the best ever formulation is dual-licensing. Having an unstop fountainhead task that is AGPL and forces feature providers to opt if they privation to act as apt break open well citizens (returning the modifications on the opinion) or if they prefer to preserve their educated person goods for themselves, for this reason licensing a mercantile copy of the aforesaid attitude. It is a shining example that made MySQL one of the supreme in expand basis projects, but likewise a one cardinal dollar business next to frequent enterprises amazingly cheerful to have remarkable opinion and no unfold basis requirements.

In summary, Funambrol's decree to controller to the AGPL permit accepted through OSI was simply a shove to advance the adhesion to accepted licensing on break open beginning software. Using an qualified licensing model encourages enterprises to market their trade versions of code glibly.