Talk:GNU Affero General Public License

CorenSearchBot is wrong
The CorenSearchBot is wrong. I have not copied contents from http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html. I have copied it from the GNU Lesser General Public License page, which is part of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPetazzoni (talk • contribs) Nov 19, 2007 18:31

Two pages for Affero license?
I am not completely sure why we have separate pages for the old AGPL and the new AGPLv3 that was recently released by the FSF. We should figure out if we want to merge them. I am not completely sure myself how to start that process, but I wanted to mention it here. -- bkuhn 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did the merge into this the older article with the longer page history with many more editors. I left this, the newer article, the REDIRECT. Lentower (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNU Affero General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607064424/http://www.funambol.com/news/pressrelease_2008.3.13.php to http://www.funambol.com/news/pressrelease_2008.3.13.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What is that "criticism" section even doing here?
It's a single sentence with a single person's opinion. If there's more significant criticisms of the AGPL, why aren't they here? And if there aren't, what is that section even doing here? AManNamedEdwan (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Not an especially noteworthy individual in the field of licenses, and he doesn't give a particularly clear explanation of his argument. No-one else has responded, so I think it's time to delete. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

what means affero?
is it english? Binbesser (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Affero Inc is a company name. This was documented on the linked predecessor (AGPL v1) license article in the History section. That article's content has now been merged into this article - which should make it more obvious. Kissaki (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Affero General Public License
I propose to merge the Affero General Public License into GNU Affero General Public License (this article).

Affero General Public License is an article about an obsolete license whose relevance is only historical. The sources (in particular, the FSF license list) clearly point to GNU Affero General Public License as its successor, even though the former is not a version of the latter in the strict sense. Both articles have large subject overlap and very similar names, which is confusing. Merging both articles, after some copyediting, would allow us to upgrade this article to B-class, and perhaps to GA-class eventually. NicolausPrime (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ and suggest simply Affero as the target name. Arlo James Barnes 03:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to use the full name GNU Affero General Public License as the merged target article name. The word "Affero" alone refers to the company Affero, which doesn't appear notable, as sources appear to always mention it only in the historical context of the GNU AGPL license. And the vast majority of people will be coming to the page to learn about the license first, and only possibly afterwards about the company, since the former is much more widely recognized than the latter. NicolausPrime (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree; Affero would be misleading and confusing. The article should be about the license, not the company, and as such should be named accordingly (like it currently is). The original proposal here lays out how one is the successor to the other, and the other is historic. As such, it only makes sense to use the successor name as the article name. Kissaki (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per propsosal. – Gluonz  talk contribs 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. A merge seems appropriate and would better correlate and connect the information in question. I can affirm the predecessor is not relevant or prevalent. I've never heard of it before reading about it here, completely contrary to the prevalent and long established GNU AGPL. Kissaki (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"ASP Loophole"?
Main body of article uses this phrase, makes it clear it's important to why the AGPL was created, but doesn't define it and there's not really a definition as such in the rest of the article. I came here wondering if this was the license that makes SaaS providers provide source to free software programs they use, and ended up... well, going to the GNU.org site instead. It seems rushed and people were so excited to write about the AGPL they forgot to actually slow down and include the per tenant facts. 2601:584:300:345E:EA62:88AD:9E06:DBD0 (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the phrase "ASP loophole" from the article: the sources don't use it without qualification anyway. The prose still needs some work, though. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)