FADA: Framework for Animations of Distributed Algorithms

Question: When Funambol first released software, it was released under your ain licence - the Honest Populace License. How makes the AGPL differ from the HPL?

Capobianco: The HPL essentially added one paragraph to the GPL v2 license, to turn to the asp loophole. AGPLv3 makes the same thing to the GPL v3 licence i.e. it is based on the more than recent GPL v3 rather than HPL being based on the aged GPL v2. But conceptually, both licences were intended to turn to the asp loophole. Funambol was involved in the definition of AGPLv3, switched to it as soon as it was released, and had it OSI-approved.

Question: Why did the company happen it necessary to change licenses? In other words, why move to the AGPL and see it through the OSI blessing process?

Capobianco: When Funambol introduced the HPL, we said right from the beginning that as soon as there was an OSI-approved version of the licence that addressed the asp loophole, we would switch over to it. This is because there is a concern about the proliferation of too many different yet similar unfastened beginning licences confusing people. So that is why we pushed to have got got the AGPLv3 approved by the OSI and why we switched to it the 2nd it became OSI approved, because the human race really makes have quite a few different unfastened beginning licences and by virtuousness of using an OSI approved license, it cuts down on the figure of proprietary vendor-written licenses.

Question: How make you react to those in the mass mass media or other industry perceivers who state the AGPL doesn't adequately turn to the asp Loophole?

Capobianco: I believe the treatment in the media is not if the AGPL adequately turns to the asp Loophole. That is a given. It does. The inquiry is if shutting the asp Loophole will be a benefit for unfastened beginning in general or not, or if the AGPL will restrict acceptance of unfastened beginning software system by enterprises. I personally make not believe there is an issue. Enterprises are not affected by the asp Loophole, because it is targeted to people running software system as a service to the public. Enterprises that tally services internally make not have got to expose their alterations to the public. It is a non-issue.

Question: Some say that rather than requiring service suppliers to lend the codification that constructs on unfastened beginning back to the community, the community should simply work to make something like what the proprietorship service supplier is offering. What make you believe of that approach?

Capobianco: I believe the best attack is dual-licensing. Having an unfastened beginning undertaking that is AGPL and military units service suppliers to make up one's mind if they desire to act as good unfastened beginning citizens (returning the alterations on the code) or if they prefer to maintain their intellectual place for themselves, therefore licensing a commercial version of the same code. It is a theoretical account that made MySQL 1 of the most successful unfastened beginning projects, but also a one billion dollar company with many endeavors very happy to have got great codification and no unfastened beginning requirements.