AGPL != Awesome GPL.
====================
So I was about to write a really funny blog post. It would've been really super
amazingly funny. It was going to go something like such:
A verbatim copy of the AGPL license. And I would rename it to something like the
CGPL - Contemplorary GNU Public License. I was going to replace all the mentions
of Affero with Contemplorary (yes, I made it up) and then rewrite clause 13 that
describes network interaction. My new clause would've read something like:
13. Willful Contemplation of Enhancement; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Any entity who contemplates or can be shown to have likely entertained
the notion of contemplating the use or enhancement of The Progarm for
any purpose shall be required to convey a copy of the covered work plus
any contemplation of enhancement to anyone willing to receive said copy.
As contemplation is fleeting it is required that all persons having
obtained a copy of The Program are required to record all thoughts in
triplicate such that these contemplated enhancements may be conveyed to
all interested parties. In order to ensure that interested parties are
able to retain the right to contemplating said contemplations, the
aforementioned notes must be made publically accessible within five
business days under applicable local laws.
Yes. I would actually have found that amusing. And I would've gone back and
relicensed a project with it just to see what happens. Nothing would've
happened. But I would've still enjoyed the thought of someone scratching their
head over the whole thing.
As it Turns Out
---------------
I started reading the AGPL and for the first time I really read the copyright
statement:
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
You're shitting me. The license itself can not be changed? Now IANAL, but does
that really mean I can't make an amusing (to me) alteration to the license?
Assuming derivative work as defined in the license itself I'm gonna have to
guess that yes, making fun of the AGPL by writing a derived license would be a
violation.
So assuming that theory is correct, one of the most popular open source licenses
doesn't allow derivative works of the license itself?
Caveats, Always Caveats
-----------------------
My legal interpretation is probably wrong. Though I doubt that it's so wrong
that a lawyer would say, "Go for it!" And you could argue that allowing copies
may result in brand dilution or something along that vein. I know of no other
license that has a copyright notice on the license itself. The whole thing is
just really messing with my head.
Tumbolia Public License
-----------------------
So, instead of writing that really funny blog post, I'm just going to advertise
a license that more people should be using: the Tumbolia Public License. I've
included a verbatim copy here for reference. I have already released projects
under this license and so should you. Mostly just to screw with the lawyer types
that make us non-lawyer types extremely confused over what it is we're supposed
to be doing with licenses.
Tumbolia Public License
Copyright ,
Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and
this notice are preserved.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. opan saurce LOL
Copyright Notice
----------------
Copyright 2008-2010 Paul Joseph Davis
License
-------
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/