Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Some additional history

Posted Mar 15, 2013 5:37 UTC (Fri) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
In reply to: Some additional history by bkuhn
Parent article: SCALE: The life and times of the AGPL

Now wait a minute, bkuhn. Take a look at this historical record:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gp...

I remind you that *you* were "ratiodoc". While ratiodoc was just populating initial stet comments through references to the first Rationale Document, presumably you were conscious of what you were writing. Thus at some moment on January 16, 2006, you presumably were aware that there was no Affero clause in GPLv3 as such and that instead there was an Affero compatibility mechanism.

(Log in to post comments)

I was not ratiodoc

Posted Mar 15, 2013 16:17 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

I was the manager of the contractor (Orion) who populated ratiodoc. It's not the same thing. He worked directly with Novalis, at least until Novalis left FSF.

I think you were ratiodoc

Posted Mar 15, 2013 18:11 UTC (Fri) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]

I will just say that this is inconsistent with my recollection on both counts.

I think you were ratiodoc

Posted Mar 16, 2013 16:17 UTC (Sat) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

I distinctly remember thinking at the time: "Wow, I wish I had time to actually read and study these comments instead of just helping Orion get them imported into the system".

Okay, maybe it doesn't matter whether you were ratiodoc

Posted Mar 16, 2013 18:07 UTC (Sat) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]

But if inclusion of the Affero clause was so important to you, why didn't you bother to see whether it was there?

Okay, maybe it doesn't matter whether you were ratiodoc

Posted Mar 19, 2013 23:33 UTC (Tue) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link]

Already explained. I was tricked into distraction.

Aug	SEP	Oct
	05
2014	2015	2016