AGPL for accounting-api for now; LAGPL when it exists; maybe LGPL in a year if LAGPL never happens

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Josh,

Josh Berkus wrote on 27 February:
> Realistically, I think you need a signed document from all copyright
> holders *now* if relicensing is to be a realistic goal.  Stuff
> happens;

At the moment, we more or less have that. Right now, Joar and I are the
only two copyright holders.  Joar has a signed agreement already which
allows him to keep copyright but for Conservancy to pick the license for
work it funds.  However, notwithstanding Conservancy's legal rights
under that contract, I won't make the change without discussion with
Joar after he's had a chance to read the Lesser AGPL.

I'm the only other copyright holder, and I'm not going to Thailand or
become a hermit.

In short: at the moment, we're covered. 

I would love it if we had enough contributors that it became a realistic
necessity to get signed documents from all of them about relicensing.

> Without legal authority to relicense, that's a fairly empty promise.

I just don't get *who* you think is in the way here.  Me, Joar?  And,
I've already pledged to discuss this with any new contributor!

> Since I haven't had time to hack on this so far, that's not much of a
> loss to you, except that I believe my perspective is not uncommon.

Right now, all we have is a proof of concept library anyway.  If things
go well, we'll have the Lesser AGPL by the end of the year -- I've made
it a priority for this project to discuss the LAGPL with FSF.
Hopefully, about the time the library is actually useful, we'll also
have the right license.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy