davisp

I'm not arguing this at all, that would be 'relicensing' AFAIK. My post was about changing the text of the AGPL itself. And my entire post was that I read that first clause and then thought, "WTF? Can I even make a funny blog post?" and then it became a funny blog post (to me) about me wondering if I could make a funny blog post.

Granted, that's not the first time this conversation has included the (to me) specifier so I may be in the minority on the amusement on this one.

LOL, WHUT?

This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to have an actual opinion.

I propose an experiment where we introduce Levenshtein to a lawyer and see who's head explodes first.

Whats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.

The entire post was to point out my confusion. And there aren't 50 versions of the GPL. But there are many FOSS licenses. And compatibility is speech from a high horse. GPL advocates often worry about "license compatibility" when the GPL is incompatible with any other license.

I can't release MIT licensed code that links against a GPL'd library. That's a pretty huge incompatibility if you ask me.

The WTFPL also made me LOL. But the TPL was written by a friend so I lean towards that one. I think both are firmly planted in the LOL world so its only a matter of preference of what flavor of LOL that you prefer.

Are you willing to stake your lunch on that interpretation? I read it as "no modifications allowed" as opposed to "modifications require a new name not confusable with the AGPL". I would support the second, but the first interpretation is what actually motivated opening my editor.

Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation?

I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no training in law.

Were they that hard to find?

These vanity licenses are LOLs licenses. Those of us that are actually concerned with such things actually do use a license of our choice. I tend to prefer the X11/MIT because its short enough I understand it. But occasionally I use the TPL for small things just to make people contemplate.

Its quite childish. That's where we derive the LOLs

So far Windows doesn't seem to be getting the same boost, so we'll see how things shake out. Though I'm more excited to hack in some other code I've already written which will avoid the JSON conversions all together.

The reason we use an embedded scripting environment is so that the control can be handled by Erlang. Its quite true that we could have an external system doing Map/Reduce a la CouchDB-Lucene but that would just increase the pain point, plus make things even harder to move between systems due to configuration overhead etc.

Though the point of this post was mostly to play with the new erlang_js package as well as try and determine what cost is associated with the stdio communication channel used by the current view generation model.

Hacked together an on_method callback last night for the Python bindings I'm writing:

http://github.com/davisp/http-parser/commit/50e54f95fd4c2eac...