AGPL, was RE: [vworld-tech] Modern MUD server design

Alistair Riddoch alriddoch at
Thu Jan 22 16:08:09 PST 2004

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 05:25:13PM -0600, Patrick Dughi wrote:
> > I do know that lots of people are pushing for the GPLv3 to treat
> networked
> > users the same, but this AGPL isn't it.
> 	I had heard of, and was watching the development of GPLv3.  In
> fact, I was directing some questions to licensing at, but it
> appears that this is sort of an electronic hurdy-gurdy, and you never
> know what comes out, or who's going to answer.  The most recent replies
> came from an individual who was ~STRONGLY~ pushing for everyone to use
> the AFERO, and claimed it would be the next (v3) GPL.  I was confused
> because I was pretty sure it wasn't, but he was very insistent that it
> is/was v3.  
> 	Apparently, the licensing at has no sort of regulation or
> control, it's apparently somewhat of a personal opinion hotline that's
> redirected to individuals who've worked with/for the FSF (like finding
> GPL violations).   

I have contacted the FSF's full time license engineer about this issue.
licensing at is all read by him, and is replied to by him and a volunteer
who is well versed in GPL and licensing issues.  Opinions you get when
communicating with licensing at are as far as is possible the official FSF

While AGPL is not actually what will become GPLv3, GPLv3 will be similar in
spirit, and will probably be worded in such a way as to require MUD or vworld
servers to provide a copy of the source code to their users if the server code
is under the terms of the GPLv3.

Alistair Riddoch
alriddoch at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the vworld-tech mailing list