RE: https://mastodon.me.uk/@Floppy/116940067151749214
This is actually happening; we're building a community to execute a bigotry-free #Rails fork (29 people and increasing at time of writing). Come join us, we need your help and expertise.
If you are forking anyway, would you be open to hearing the case why a network service copyleft like AGPLv3 might be useful?
I'm not part of the Rails or Ruby community, so I don't want to intrude, but if there is an appropriate way to make the pitch, I'd like to.
Do you think the new community would be interested in it?
(Biggest reason, frankly: discourage dhh from just taking your work back to his "upstream").
Cc: @richardfontana
@bkuhn @Floppy @richardfontana
Would that mean that people using (ie consuming the libraries) the fork would also fall under the terms of the AGPL and need to publish their code?
@intrbiz, We could create @cwebber's old dream of the *Lesser* Affero GPL: complicated to write,but it'd function for web apps as LGPL for glibc in proprietary C programs.
Despite cwebber's urging, I never wrote LAGPL b/c I feared it'd be a wasted "build it & they [won't] come" ,but if #Rails fork community is interested,I'd go for it.
Where's the appropriate place to discuss officially? I don't wanna interlope on (eg) your Matrix channel unless license talk is welcome.
@bkuhn @cwebber @Floppy @richardfontana
I don't speak in any capacity for the rails fork (but I do hope them success), nor do I have a project with a sufficient user base.
But I would love to see a LAGPL variant. I think that would be very useful in many situations. As a pragmatic argument against the 'open core' style licences.
As an outsider, a fork adopting the fully AGPL I think is likely to hamper that fork, rather than boost it.
