Comments on: AGPL http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl en Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:27:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.2.2 by: Anonymous http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:48:21 +0100 541:86@http://raw-output.org If you’ve ever signed one of their copyright assignments, or used an “or later” license, you could potentially complain to them saying that you feel they violated their statement about new licenses keeping the same spirit as old ones. If you felt strongly enough about it and felt like giving yourself a permanently bad reputation with the FOSS community, you could go after them legally over same. Depends on what you hope to accomplish. If you’ve ever signed one of their copyright assignments, or used an “or later” license, you could potentially complain to them saying that you feel they violated their statement about new licenses keeping the same spirit as old ones. If you felt strongly enough about it and felt like giving yourself a permanently bad reputation with the FOSS community, you could go after them legally over same. Depends on what you hope to accomplish.

]]> by: Kevin Mark http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:49:36 +0100 542:86@http://raw-output.org Not knowing exactly what you think is wrong, I’d say this: why would the FSF not listen to constructive criticism for its community? If you assigned a copyright license that you now don’t like, you can change it AFAIK. If its about the AGPL, its about Software-as-a-service. I’m not sure who would use this license but I don’t expect anyone to use it, at least not in the immediate future. Not knowing exactly what you think is wrong, I’d say this:
why would the FSF not listen to constructive criticism for its community?
If you assigned a copyright license that you now don’t like, you can change it AFAIK.
If its about the AGPL, its about Software-as-a-service. I’m not sure who would use this license but I don’t expect anyone to use it, at least not in the immediate future.

]]> by: mako http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:53:36 +0100 543:86@http://raw-output.org You can write to the FSF and tell that you disagree. You can write to the FSF and tell that you disagree.

]]> by: Joe Buck http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:28:46 +0100 544:86@http://raw-output.org To anonymous #1: an “or later” license for the GPL would not be affected by the AGPL, which is a different license. To anonymous #1: an “or later” license for the GPL would not be affected by the AGPL, which is a different license.

]]> by: Jacobo http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:53:00 +0100 545:86@http://raw-output.org Mako: oh, yeah, they’ll read my email and be shocked because someone was disappointed by something they did, and then they will start thinking about why I felt motivated to write that message and email me back to ask me about my concerns and then they’ll amend the AGPL to address them. Or they’ll just put the email in the “proprietary software advocates” folder. Putting a restriction on usage on their license, that’s not something you do by mistake after a couple of years of public consultation. Mako: oh, yeah, they’ll read my email and be shocked because someone was disappointed by something they did, and then they will start thinking about why I felt motivated to write that message and email me back to ask me about my concerns and then they’ll amend the AGPL to address them.

Or they’ll just put the email in the “proprietary software advocates” folder.

Putting a restriction on usage on their license, that’s not something you do by mistake after a couple of years of public consultation.

]]> by: 1052 http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:45:20 +0100 546:86@http://raw-output.org The obvious question is: why? Is it not clause 13 the whole point of the Affero License? The obvious question is: why?

Is it not clause 13 the whole point of the Affero License?

]]> by: Simon http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:20:18 +0100 547:86@http://raw-output.org I’m with comment 1052 - the whole point of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent people keeping the source to software provided as a service, whilst providing an Affero like license which is GNU GPL 3 compatible. They have scope to improve the license in later versions, if you can propose a better scheme for meeting the intended result I’m sure they would revise the license. However parts of 13 are a given; users who don’t know the system they are using is covered the the GNU AGPL need some sort of notice. Since it isn’t clear that the end user of such systems are software users in the traditional sense, the GNU GPL v3 is inadequate, and extending the GNU GPL v3 to cover such cases would be too strong. Similarly since these third party users are accessing software being used by someone else, the insistent it be redistributed is always a restriction on use no matter how it is redistributed. So whilst you could relax the wording around redistributing, it will always be a restriction on use in some sense, simply because it is redefining who the freedoms should apply to. I’m with comment 1052 - the whole point of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent people keeping the source to software provided as a service, whilst providing an Affero like license which is GNU GPL 3 compatible.

They have scope to improve the license in later versions, if you can propose a better scheme for meeting the intended result I’m sure they would revise the license. However parts of 13 are a given; users who don’t know the system they are using is covered the the GNU AGPL need some sort of notice. Since it isn’t clear that the end user of such systems are software users in the traditional sense, the GNU GPL v3 is inadequate, and extending the GNU GPL v3 to cover such cases would be too strong. Similarly since these third party users are accessing software being used by someone else, the insistent it be redistributed is always a restriction on use no matter how it is redistributed.

So whilst you could relax the wording around redistributing, it will always be a restriction on use in some sense, simply because it is redefining who the freedoms should apply to.

]]> by: Anonymous http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:20:09 +0100 548:86@http://raw-output.org In response to Joe Buck’s comment that ‘an “or later” license for the GPL would not be affected by the AGPL, which is a different license.’: if you licensed code under GPL v2 or later, then you expect your code to continue to have a strong copyleft, and you expect the license to continue to prohibit works which based on both your code and proprietary code. Now, along comes the GPLv3, which explicitly (clause 13) proclaims compatibility with a license you consider proprietary (the AGPL). In response to Joe Buck’s comment that ‘an “or later” license for the GPL would not be affected by the AGPL, which is a different license.’: if you licensed code under GPL v2 or later, then you expect your code to continue to have a strong copyleft, and you expect the license to continue to prohibit works which based on both your code and proprietary code. Now, along comes the GPLv3, which explicitly (clause 13) proclaims compatibility with a license you consider proprietary (the AGPL).

]]> by: 1052 http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:01:46 +0100 549:86@http://raw-output.org @Anonymous8 “Starting from a false assumption, anything can be concluded.” The AGPL has a stronger copyleft than the GPL. It assumes that distribution also includes interaction through a network, and thus requires to allow the user to get the source code. Clause 13 *is* a restriction (whether on usage or distribution depends on how you define the terms). But it doesn’t follow that it makes the license non-free. (The GPLv2 also has restrictions). So, yes, the GPLv3 allows works to be combined with one specific license with a stronger copyleft. So, what? That you don’t actually want to give the source code back to the user? So what is the point of using the GPL in the first place? The GPLv3 also allows to incorporate code licensed under the Apache License. So if I consider the apache license proprietary, then the GPLv3 proclaims compatibility with a proprietary license!! OMG!! Front-page in Slashdot!! (please, notice the sarcasm marks…) @Anonymous8

“Starting from a false assumption, anything can be concluded.”

The AGPL has a stronger copyleft than the GPL. It assumes that distribution also includes interaction through a network, and thus requires to allow the user to get the source code. Clause 13 *is* a restriction (whether on usage or distribution depends on how you define the terms). But it doesn’t follow that it makes the license non-free. (The GPLv2 also has restrictions). So, yes, the GPLv3 allows works to be combined with one specific license with a stronger copyleft. So, what? That you don’t actually want to give the source code back to the user? So what is the point of using the GPL in the first place?

The GPLv3 also allows to incorporate code licensed under the Apache License. So if I consider the apache license proprietary, then the GPLv3 proclaims compatibility with a proprietary license!! OMG!! Front-page in Slashdot!! (please, notice the sarcasm marks…)

]]> by: mako http://raw-output.org/20071120/agpl#comments Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:13:26 +0100 550:86@http://raw-output.org The only use that the AGPL prohibits is proprietary software develop based on free software where users of software do not have access to source. The real good that this license will do will, in my mind, be more than outweighed by any harm done by forcing companies to jump through the hoops of giving their users the source code to the application. It’s never been easy under GPL but it was, and continues to be, a price worth paying. If you know of examples where this requirement will create a large onus with real harm. Please let me know of them. The only use that the AGPL prohibits is proprietary software develop based on free software where users of software do not have access to source.

The real good that this license will do will, in my mind, be more than outweighed by any harm done by forcing companies to jump through the hoops of giving their users the source code to the application. It’s never been easy under GPL but it was, and continues to be, a price worth paying.

If you know of examples where this requirement will create a large onus with real harm. Please let me know of them.

]]>