Slashdot Mirror
FSF Releases AGPL License For Web Services
mako writes "The Free Software Foundation has released the Affero General Public license version 3. The license is essentially the GPLv3 with an added clause that requires that source code be distributed to users that interact with the application over a network. The license effectively extends copyright to Web applications. The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web. This release adds the license to the stable of official FSF licenses and is compatible with the GPLv3."
Can someone explain exactly how a license can extend Copyright?
The owner of the copyright might extend terms in his license, not the other way round.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web
Only if they use it. No-one's under an obligation to use a new version of a licence, and if they don't like the terms, they may steer clear of it to start with.
I think it's great that the FSF has opened up to different views on how Free Software should be protected without compromising the fundamental principle of copyleft. The GPL -> AGPL compatibility gives a real chance for different software groups to work together. I'm going to relicense all my perl modules under this.
who read Afro gpl the first time around?
It has an additional requirement that GPLv3 doesn't have. Maybe I'm just stupid but I don't quite see how it can be compatible since GPLv3 doesn't allow additional requirements.
What does this mean now? If I release a web service under AGPL, do I have to distribute the changes or not?
Sorry, am not a native English speaker. IANAL too.
-- Prem
Aiming to tweet on a rice
Yet another viral license.
This might be useful for companies too. We have in example been thinking about releasing our software in open source to expand the usage of our software and to gain more knowledge in the markets about us. However as we are business and a rather small one, releasing the software in example in GPL would be more or less commercial suicide, as our software is purely web based, some bigger service company could just take it and give nothing back...
I really have to read more about AGPL. I think that by combining AGPL + MPL + strong attribution clauses, for us and maybe to many more small developers it could come more lucrative to open source our software, because we still would get changes back, we would have more freedom and we would get attribution for our work. Definitely very good for FSF to publish this license. I really think that in time as there comes more licenses that cover different things, it will come more and more easier and secure to publish software and other works in open source.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
> The GPL is and has always been passed to DERIVIATIONS of an application, not work created USING the application.
:-)
this remains true
> Are you saying that if I, say, use an AGPL-licensed currency converting web service on my ticket reservation site, I must release the WHOLE site under the AGPL?
no. have a read of the license and you will find it's only the one application. The new license is actually almost exactly identical to the GPLv3
>The difference between protecting modifications of the software, and forcing WORK done with the software to be released under the GPL is HUGE.
You are right and the FSF agrees. FSF licenses make it impossible to force work done with the software and not embedding parts of thw software to be controlled.
> I'd be very glad if it was just me misunderstanding the license,
Be glad
It means that if your ticket reservation site is a derivative of some AGPL code (in the usual GPL sense), you must release your derivative work, even though you never actually distributed it, only allowed access across a network. Nothing else.
GPL : release changes if you publish GPL-derived code.
?GPL : refer to your GPL-based/derived software X as GPL/X.
AGPL : release changes if you do not publish AGPL-derived code.
nxGPL: release changes if you publish non GPL-derived code.
Nice to hear, but pardon my ignorance, why the heck does it then refer to those who modify the program as "users"?
Users are those that use the software to produce their own work. If the license doesn't apply to them, but only to those that make changes to the program, it shouldn't refer to the developers as "users" but "authors", "contributors", or "producers of derivative work".
I've been against this clause ever since I heard GPLv3 was adding compatibility. One of the important parts of the GPL is that it allows private development if the changes weren't distributed - this is an important thing, as there's no user to protect if it's made for self consumption. The four freedoms that RMS always speak of aren't threatened by this, as the user is the same as the writer - there's no oppression that needs to be stopped here. The addition is a corruption of the GPL, changing it's purpose from one of freedom for all users to the coercive obtainment of the source code at any cost.
As much as I welcome this license, and as important as I think it is that web services aren't used to deny people the basic freedoms that every software user should enjoy (especially if that software IS free software to begin with)...
Can someone explain to me just how this license can actually be legally binding? We were always told that merely *using* a piece of software did not require accepting its license, and - furthermore - that this was not due to a special clause in the GPL, either (in fact, that would've been impossible, since you'd have to accept the license for that clause to have any effect). This made sense: after all, copyright is about copying/distributing/conveying things (like software), not about regulating use of copyrighted works. You can read a book without needing a license from the publisher; you can use software without requiring a license as well (copying it to your own computer may be another matter, though).
So how can the Affero GPL stipulate that you need to convey the source code of the software you're using to power your web services when you're not actually distributing that software? What would keep $EvilCorporation from simply saying "we do not accept the terms of this license; therefore, we have no right to distribute $UsefulSoftware written by $PhilanthropicHacker, but we still have the right to *use* it, which is all we do when we use it to power our web service"?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Config files can contain secrets such as mysql passwords, etc. And modifying them is definitely modification of source code. I wonder how they get across that one...
No.
Yes.
No, no, no, no, no....
We're not talking about work created using an application, we're still talking about derivations of an app.
It's just that this app is a web-thingy app, and will never be "distributed" to users, but will just provide some kind of service to them.
So that according to the GPL, devs are not obliged to release modifications they made to the code, and can get away with the "free beer" part without caring much about the "free speech" one.
As always, if this license doesn't suit your needs, don't use it.
AGPL is no more "viral" than GPL is, it's just appropriate for "free as in free speech" web-apps development.
I write a web based application, say forum software, and publish that under the regular GPL.
That means you can take the source code for my software and modify it and use it. BUT because you never distribute that modified code (you only run it on your own server) you don't have to honor the GPL and disclose your modifications.
This is extremely common lots of websites use GPL software but never contribute back their own changes.
IF I write my forum software under the AGPL and you modify it for your own use, you now have to distribute those changes. Roughly the same as if you had modified a client program.
HOWEVER your question is slightly odd, if you release a web service under AGPL then you are the original author. As the original author (as long as no others contribute code to you) you can do what you please. Just because version 1 of your software was under X license doesn't mean version 2 has to be.
What I think you meant to ask was "If I build a webservice with software that is licensed under the AGPL, do I have to distribute changes I make to that software".
The answer to that is YES.
Although I presume they will allow you to modify the config file and keep it private, bit of a security nightmare if you have to distribute the bit that contains your passwords ^_^
Basically this is the GPL for software where the end-user only gets the end-result, not the actuall program.
It is an intresting idea, the GPL works because it en-forces users to be contributors as well. There is a reason MS and Apple love BSD and IBM loves the GPL. Why should software like forum software be different?
As a web developer I like the idea. When I release a web-app and you modify it, you now have to give that code back. Seems only fair, why should web-apps be different?
If you don't like the idea, well then don't use AGPL licensed software. Write your own or use software under a different license.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Last time I checked copyright didn't extend to the output of a programme, otherwise Microsoft would own all of your .doc files and everything produced by gcc would have to fall under the GPL.
How can the AGPL work in practice?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm not sure about that one, but even if it were true...
No, it's nothing like that!
What this licence is saying - as is quite clear in TFA - is that if I host an AGPL application, and you log in to my server and use it, I have to provide you with the source code to the web service that you are using including any modifications I have made to it. This means that you can check for vulnerabilities and exploits etc.
As to whether I have to licence my entire server under AGPL if I use a small AGPL component, well that's a different issue and the article doesn't say whether the licence requires that or not.
Yeah, you're right, the FSF article does overload the term "user" in an unhelpful way.
Then don't use this new license, but stick with GPLv3 which doesn't have that clause.
This guy is trolling, he purposefully misreads the license and tries to introduce the old troll that GPL software means that what is produced with that software must be GPL'ed as well. This is offcourse complete and utter nonsense, but it is a regular troll that usually gets modded down pretty quickly.
He just tries a new angle with the AGPL. To make it clear for those who don't understand the license. Slashdot is run on custom code, lets say that it is released under the GPL, you can now take that code, install it on your own server (scream a bit as you release what you have just done) and run your own site with it (although it never will be quite like slashdot unless you hire a finite number of monkeys as your editors). So far so good. Now you modify this code. To hide your shame you don't actually distribute the code in question, just run it on your own server. A GPL license in this case would NOT force you to release these modifications, the GPL only triggers when you distribute the code/program to others. Google for instance uses a modified GPL code, but because they don't distribute are under no obligation to distribute the modified code (they do distribute some of it although they don't have too).
IF however the slash code was released under the AGPL you would be forced to distribute your modifications.
BUT at no point would the END result of the code/program fall under any license other then that which you choose. In this case, the HTML pages created would OFFCOURSE not fall under the AGPL or GPL or ANY license unless you choose one yourselve. (does machine created content fall under basic copyright?)
This is very clear from the license text and only a deliberate misreading by someone wishing to troll could result in any other explenation.
The GPL/AGPL are about the program/code, NOT about the results of the program/code. Anyone who tries to claim something else is an idiot.
It says a lot about slashdot moderation that this tired old troll was modded up. He tries to disguise himself by saying that he is happy to be corrected but before without trying to link Stallman to communism (the gpl is far closer to the true idea of a free market) and without having spouted a lot of outright crap first.
Now if you excuse me, I have to use windows for an hour as punishement for feeding the troll.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Great! I spend 12 years (count 'em) working to convince first developers, then managers, then commercial directors, and then, finally, lawyers, to see the benefits of open source, and not to fear it. And then this. Great. Thanks.
In an attempt to make life simple for simple folk, I've spent 12 years explaining that there are three kinds of free software:
Public domain software - no copyright, no nothing. Rare and not very useful, but it does exist. Well, it did exist until universities wised up to what some of the faculty were doing.
BSD style software. Free to use, free to make proprietary derivations.
GPL style software. Free to use, but distributed derivations must also be GPL
Now this. It's no longer about distribution, it's about use. Not only that, but we aren't talking websites, we're talking any remote network access. 'Remote' is not defined in the license, so it's while localhost is probably excluded, I've no idea what the status of an intranet would be. What about the intranet of a multi-national?
Bah. So, I run a search engine that's AGPL'd. Cool. Folk can search my site. Then I find a bug, and fix it on my copy of the search engine. Now, I'm in breach of license unless I add some stupid 'download my forked version source code here' link to my site. And I have to keep that link there until the main branch accept my bug fix and release a new version, whereupon I must upgrade to the new version (possibly including other stuff I don't want) until I can get rid of the link.
-----
I can see where this would be useful.
Say you've got forum software, like phpBB. Lots of people put modifications into it and lots of people release modifications. There are also lots of people who hack in large custom mods and gain from the phpBB base while not releasing anything because it is GPL. If phpBB was AGPLed then major changes like that would have to be released and so anyone modifying, for example, a forum script to turn it into a CMS would have to release their modification. That would then stop people having to re-implement the same CMS functionality just because no-one wanted to release it.
Okay, so it's not necessarily going to be a winner in all cases, and it may dissuade some people from using a script, but I can see where it might be useful.
The trouble with this is that the people purportedly bound by the license are users, not distributors. The GPL works because the people in question are distributing copies and thus need a license. People installing software on a server are not.
In the USA, you have the legal right to make copies of software for the purpose of using it. Copying it to your server is not copyright infringement. Running it is not copyright infringement. You don't need a license. So what compels AGPL users to accept this license and be bound by its terms? Where is the consideration?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
It is just a new option. Developers who don't like it terms, can still use GPL3. Developers who want to receive modifications of their programs, used as network services, can use the new one.
No, no, no, you've completely misunderstood it.
The GPL, and all other licenses based in copyrights, only kick in when you perform the actual copying. Say, for example, that you modify MySQL somehow. If you acquired MySQL under the GPL, and you wish to DISTRIBUTE this modified version, you have to abide by the GPL, and give out the source-code for your modifications alongside. This is the only way the GPL can kick in currently, when someone wishes to distribute modifications of GPL software.
But say that instead of modifying MySQL and making a downloadable application that runs on the user's computer, I make a web application. I still use MySQL on my server, and I use my code for the actual web application, and this combined essentially forms a derived work of MySQL, and if I were to distribute this application, I would also have to give out the source-code for my web app for free. But I'm not distributing it, I'm only making it available through my website, and because GPL only kicks in during distribution, I'm free to use as much GPL software as I possibly want for my web application without ever releasing any source code.
This is what this AGPL wants to stop. If MySQL was distributed under it, then everyone who built a web app using MySQL, would also have to give away the source code for their web app, if they make it available to users.
Needless to say, this is not going to be very popular with companies. I can't imagine Google or Facebook or MySpace or similar websites ever wanting to give away their source-code, since it contains all the trade secrets, everything that gives them the edge over the competition. I work for a small company and we have our own web application that is backed by some GPL software, but we would never want to give away the code we made ourselves, that would be suicide for us as a company.
For the right to modify code to be useful there is an implicit assumption that the database under the program is available. What point is it for a web user, of any level of sophistication, to have the source for some web app, when he doesn't have access to the database it runs on? He can't reproduce his experience. He can only relaunch the same service on another URL with a different database on the backend.
This illustrates nicely that the purpose of the FSF is not to ensure users retain important capabilities, but to ensure that there is no copyright in any software work.
There, fixed it for you.
I find this license rather onerous, as it basically categorizes the end-user as a distributor, even though no such distribution has occurred, and forces the user, solely on the basis of using the software, into the precarious position of also serving as a distributor for said software. I believe this violates the spirit of F/OSS in that using the software is no longer "free" (as in freedom), as there are now strings attached: Use this software, and you are now obligated to support a distribution channel as well.
What I predict will happen is that unsuspecting users, who are familiar with the traditional definition of F/OSS (or perhaps have just been turned on to F/OSS), will grab a piece of software licensed under the Affero license, believing it to be "free" when, in fact, it's not really "free". Said user, who might have been a vociferous advocate for F/OSS, will become disenchanted with the entire process as simply a "bait and switch" scheme and move on to some proprietary solution. Score for F/OSS: 0 Score for closed source: 1
I know there are those who will say "tough shit, should have read the license first." Those people will have lost the ticket to the clue train, because anyone who feels like they've been duped into this scenario (regardless of whether they have read the license or not) will become the worst type of enemy for F/OSS.
Say what you will, but this license is bad news.
Basically you are saying, don't use software if you are not willing to follow the license.
If you can't live with the AGPL, don't use software licensed under it. The spirit of the GPL was that if you modify code, you share it. This has now just been updated to reflect web apps that previously were immune to it.
Don't like it, don't use it. Same as with GPL software.
If you want to dictate license terms, write your own software. You can then set any license you want on it. So what if some people don't want to play by the license I choose, let them go somewhere else. Let them negioate with closed source companies about the license. Let them pay me. My code, my license. Your project, your choice as to wether to use my software, but on my terms, not yours, else I will see you in court.
What you claim is 100% correct, the scenario is EXACTLY what must happen if you use AGPL code on your site. Why should it not? Why should you be free to modify MY code, profit from that for free and not have to share it back? If I wanted that I would have chosen a different license. Who are you to tell me how to license my code?
I can't make you pick my code, but you can't make me pick your preffered license.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"This license is essentially the GPLv3..."
Really? Then explain how this GPLv3 clause:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force."
is compatible with the new Affero license? Oh, that clause is not part of the Affero license? Then how can it be classified as "essentially the GPLv3"?
Very misleading. This is a sad day for F/OSS.
If however I am wrong and you have to redistribute mycode.php I can see this being a real nightmare for programmers who have incorporated all sorts of code into their project.
Developers can release their software with whatever kind of license they want, but if they make it too restrictive, then less businesses will use it and they get less exposure, ect. I can't see, for example, google, using software written under this license and then turning over modifications that may have given them a competitive edge in the marketplace. They are going to choose to use a different software or write their own.
... disiac. Music to my years.
I posted this comment on the FSF's site during the commenting period for the AGPL and I will reproduce it here:
AGPL is not enforceable in the United States
Disclaimer: IANAL
I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.
As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:
1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor
Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.
The AGPL is not an EULA.
Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."
The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.
However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf)
This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp
Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.
Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.
So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.
The GPL is and has always been passed to DERIVIATIONS of an application
The GPL is about enforcing give and take in the "free software" community, you get to use and modify the communities code on condition that when you release an improved version your users get the source to those modifications under the GPL (and hence can feed the code back to the community if they wish which if there is more than a handfull of them one of them probablly will).
The problem has been that companies are making improvements to free software but getting arround the requirement to release the source to those improvements to thier users by operating on a service model and not giving the code to thier users in any form (either source or binary).
Afaict there is no requirement in the license to release your website data or the source to other apps on your site in the license (though things could get tricky for tightly integrated sites, the license doesn't seem to do a good job of handling them).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Isn't anyone else tired of this continuous political manouvering that has FUCK ALL to do with software or computers? PD software was a great thing and has been around longer than the FSF. Open Source per se amounts to pretty much the same thing. GPL has been useful, but my reservations are growing together with the version number. And I really don't like the borg mentality. No, I'm not talking about M$Borg this time. At the end of the day, aside all the usual pubilicised reasons such as protecting the developer's rights, the GPL IS designed to force people into it. My standard response to people pushing me is "fuck you". That is if I we're not talking physically. Good ol' Stallman should maybe take a few months holiday in Russia or China and chill out a bit.
This is another step down the path to the dark side.
First, the FSF extended their definition of derived work to include programs that were compatible with GPLed code but didn't actually contain any GPLed code, bringing the horrors of interface copyrights into the FSF's fold.
Now, they're invoking the madness that modifying but not redistributing software is against the license, which is a tool used to lock end-users in by denying them the right to modify commercial software.
These kinds of clauses and interpretations strengthen the dead grasp of Microsoft and other companies that want to use software patents, interface copyrights, and onerous and offensive non-modification clauses to keep users from modifying their own software. One day, I can see the LPF in court, attacking some onerous license, and their opposite number pointing out that the same clauses were right there in licenses drawn up by the same lawyers working for the FSF.
Don't fear one evil so much that you end up serving others just as great. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, and anger leads to suffering.
I see the value of this, for "honest" contributors and companies who wish to contribute back, and ensure that those contributions are kept public and available, but... have we just opened another loophole in the licensing?
Let's say I write NeatNewWebService v0.1, and I release it under the APL. Now LoathingBastardCompany decides they like it (and I should note, something very similar has happened before).
LoathingBastardCompany takes the code, modifies it heavily inside their company, and begins using it, exposing it publicly to clients and customers.
How am I supposed to know that they're using it? How do I tell that my code is actually powering their web service? How can I enforce the APL, if there's no way to determine if it is indeed being used?
In a previous situation (see above), the company in question took our code, pulled out all of our names, ripped out the license file, changed a few About screens, and sold it to their customers and clients, at high costs. The only way we'd ever be able to gain access to the binary to debug it and find out that it was 100% our code, would be to pay that price to examine it. (In our case, they gave away our viewer code as demos to display their content (prepared with our distiller tools), so we found it easily).
But how does this happen when you're interacting with the APL code via a web service? And how do you do it, if that web service is in public, but closed usage?
The GPLv2 regulates distribution, not usage. Some people claim that GPLv3's new language exerts some control on how you use the software, although I don't quite agree with that. The AGPL does, though, and I hate it for that.
The huge problem is that it makes a special standard for web applications that nothing else is held to. If I host a web app and you use it, I'm not distributing that application to you - I'm running it on your behalf and giving you the output. This is exactly identical to you SSHing into my console server, running a terminal app, and me handing back its output. And yet because "web2.0" and all that crap is so hot right now, people seem to think it's new and different. It's not. It is the old client-server paradigm.
This is seriously screwed up and I think it's a horrible idea. I grok the GPL and love it, but this is way beyond its original intent. The GPL is supposed to give the end users freedom, not take it away. If I wanted to lose all control of the software I run, I'd just buy a copy of Windows and be done with it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So what's ethically wrong with that? Distribution has a fairly specific definition, and that ain't it. Suppose that the AGPL replaced the GPL in all GNU tools. If it's good, everyone should want to use it, right? So as part of your business, you give shell access to customers. Now they have the right to ask for the source code to Emacs just because they ran it on your server.
If that doesn't make sense for console programs - and it doesn't - then why is it a good thing for web apps? And if everyone migrates to a non-web framework in the future, say using JSON over SMTP or something else goofy, will there be a BGPL that applies extra conditions only to that class of applications?
AGPL sucks and is a bad idea all around. I can't believe this got greenlighted.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
all you have to do is mention public domain and BSD style licenses.
If you build a web service with software that OTHER PEOPLE wrote (or more specifically, own the copyrights to), and those COPYRIGHT HOLDERS licensed it under the AGPL, then:
- YES you have to release your modifications, or you are in breach of the AGPL. (Unless you obtain some other license directly from the copyright holders. If the only license you have from them is the AGPL, you have to follow its terms or you can't modify or distribute the software, or make derivative works of it ("propagate" it in GPLv3 parlance)).
- NO you can't relicense the original software that you used -- only its copyright holders can do that.
- You can license your *derived work* however you want, with the exception that it must be compatible with the AGPL licensing terms that the original software carries (otherwise no one will be able to use your licensed code, and your own AGPL rights to the original code it is based on may be terminated due to your breach of its terms).
IANAL.
The comet has hit and we're just waiting for the shock wave.
Maybe the fact that AGPL is based on GPL3 will limit uptake,
but this has the potential to cause vast change. For one, thing
it may mean many more sites will need "download source" buttons.
" FSF Releases AGPL License For Web Services"
To borrow a saying.
First they came for Tivo, and I remained silent.
Then they came for Google, and I remained silent.
You all fill in the rest.
It's bad enough that a 2 million line program written from scratch would suddenly be infected by the GPL by including a 1 line file, but now we are supposed to propagate the virus with our web servers? I am perfectly happy to allow the GPL and its descendants to exist but I am reluctant see its roots dig deeper into the minds of ill-informed developers who do not realize the only goal of this license is to see how far it can spread. Before anyone tries to flame me be aware I am simply expressing my opinion, if you disagree, disagree with objectivity. I myself am an open source developer and I practice what I preach http://www.freeswitch.org/ I release my code under the MPL and BSD licenses which are actually much more liberal licenses than GPL but all the propaganda would have you believe otherwise. If you are going to write free code and give it away, then stop worrying about how other people are going to use it. When someone takes your code and makes a service out of it, don't you think they put any of their own work into it building an infrastructure etc?
At what point does a license become ridiculous? Car manufacturers don't get to dictate how you're allowed to modify your car no matter how much they might want to. Sure software authors have a legal right to do that, but why do you seem to be saying that doing so is morally defensible? It's just an artifact of twisting a system meant to protect artistic expression to also protect useful tools.
Is this compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
Is it just me, or does this seem to be an administrators nightmare?
Lets say I run a modified version of PHPwebsites under AGPL; I would then need to maintain a copy of the source code available for the rest of the world on my site(?). This would of course mean that the source code directory would indicate what version of the software I ran, as well as the patches I did to it. This in turn would not only open for easy detection of programming errors in the small local patches on my server, but as I could not apply the changes to the latest version without also announcing that I updated the software, which in turn would announce quite immediately to the world that my currently running version is out of date with vulnerabilities, as well as how much time I would usually take from a new version of the software is released, to I as admin have cleared it/activated the changes on my site.
So not only will I be more likely need to daily monitor every software used under this license to always run the latest version to avoid hostile takeovers of my server, but the attacker would be even one more step ahead of me, knowing when I would typically get things fixed - can only imagine how it would be to run a few applications on a server under a license such as this...
Copyright covers distribution, and not use, so it sounds like the license is a contradiction, since making services available is not distribution.
However, copyright also covers the creation of derivative works. So a rule could be "you can create derivative works if and only if { when you make the derivative work available to users, you make the source code available}".
It would be hard, probably impossible for a copyright license (not an EULA) to prevent someone using the unmodified code and not making it available. But that doesn't really matter, since the unmodified code can be obtained elsewhere.
Any other slashdotter non-lawyers care to speculate further?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I recieved the newsletter earlier today, and I still haven't figured out why this isn't part of the ordinary GPL. Perhaps GPLv3.1, if they forgot it in version 3.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
In that both are completely inappropriate for that, this is correct. The GPL is not "free as in speech", however much its proponents want to claim that way. Its a conditional license offered by the owner of a property (a copyright), and is, as such, "free as in beer".
Public domain software is "free as in free speech" -- you may use it freely without restrictions or conditions imposed by any private party so long as you don't break generally applicable laws in what you do with it. GPL software is a "gift" given to you in the hope that you will serve the interest of the property-holder granting you the license, and with terms that restrict your ability to use it in other ways. "Free as in free speech" for that is a clever sales tactic, but not even a remotely accurate parallel.
Say what you like about Stallman. I've no doubt that in terms of modern software development, he can't program his way out of a wet paper bag to save his life. However, he is a futurist and a visionary when it comes to *the way people create, acquire, use, and share software*.
In a few years, when you see how evil the combination of TPM (Treacherous Computing) and Software Services can be, you'll be thankful that Stallman was looking down the road and built the AGPL to give us a bridge. The overlooked feature of AGPL is the much-maligned "tivoization" clause of GPLv3. That very clause will be the saving grace of services on the web; the key (no pun intended) to ensuring that vendors cannot lock you in via Treacherous Computing.
As a consumer, prefer web services licensed under AGPL; you won't be sorry.
WTF? Is that supposed to be a brand name?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
"If you can't live with the AGPL, don't use software licensed under it."
Or ignore it. Civil disobedience. I'm not sure why the AGPL's onerous requirements would be respected when the RIAA's aren't.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
The GPL is about enforcing give and take in the "free software" community
If it's forced, then it isn't given, it's purely taken.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Someone in Russia should start MyGPL.com, where for mere pennies you can download software with all GPL references stripped from them.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
in the AGPL.
Basically the AGPL and GPL v3 both allow the use of components under the other license without affecting the license of the whole work. Hence it seems to me that if you release an AGPL v3 library, nothing prevents me from writing all network interfaces with GPL v3 code, hence absolving myself from the requirements. Similarly, nothing prevents me from writing all user interfaces in GPL v3 code, thus opting out of the AGPL restriction.
And even when I am required to make the changes to the core libraries back, nothing prevents me from writing another library which implement that functionality, so all you get is a note stating that functionality is in another library which is not distributed.
Again, I think that forced distribution is an anathema to software freedom and would never use this license anyway, even if that forced distribution does not force a distribution of the code implementing new functionality.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Distribution has a fairly specific definition, and that ain't it.
Indeed.
So what's ethically wrong with that?
It is trying to find loopholes to avoid doing what you would otherwise be required to do. I put it in the same categrory as writing a wrapper round a GPL library to let it be used over an interprocess communication mechanism from non GPL apps.
If it's good, everyone should want to use it, right?
Every restriction you add to a license has a cost and a benefit. Choosing an appropriate license for a peice of code you release is about balancing costs with benefits. There is no one license that is right for every code release.
So as part of your business, you give shell access to customers. Now they have the right to ask for the source code to Emacs just because they ran it on your server.
If it was normal practice for people to offer access to modified versions of console apps on their servers and use them as a selling point while not giving the source to them to the community I would support use of a similar license for console apps. As it stands for most if not all console apps I think such a license would do more harm than good.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
That is really the question isn't it. IS it what you claim, OR is it closer to what I think namely.
You can use my code but if you change it, I would like you to share those changes.
The BSD license is (in my opinion): Here is my code, I think you would be better off if you used it instead of writing your own, so please use it without any obligations other then that you cannot claim it as being your own.
The GPL spirit has always been against that and is more I share so you share.
That you didn't have to share your modifications under the GPLv2 if you didn't distribute it was more of a side effect. Another guy who responded to me earlier pointed out that for his website code he used BSD, because the GPL had no meaning for that kind of code, but now he is condering going to AGPL instead.
If you write server programs like all those PHP packages then the GPL is useless to enforce sharing because those who modify the code do not redistribute it.
Surely part of the idea of GPL is that software is better if lots of people work on it? It worked for client programs, who should server programs be different?
Because in away the REAL end user, the person actually USING the program (in my example the slashdot based website reader) still is the same end-user as before, and if I modify the slashdot code send to me, I don't have to share it.
I think of this as the closing of a loophole for a specific class of code/programs. But yes, I guess it all depends on what you consider the GPL to be about. Is it about allowing users to modify their code OR is it to enforce sharing of modifications.
You see, my personal problemwith your view is, why are you so against sharing code back? What is so damned objectionable against sharing those modifications you made back? It is not like I am asking you to donate blood or something. I am highly suspicious of people who want to use free software but don't want to share their own code.
I think your reading of the AGPL is perfectly accurate, and I like it. You want my code, fine, but I expect you to share it back. Perhaps that makes me an asshole, perhaps that makes you not want to use my code, but I have real trouble why I should give you my code, but you get to keep yours. Come on, I show you mine, you show me yours, it is a fun game, trust me ^_^
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It is trying to find loopholes to avoid doing what you would otherwise be required to do.
No it isn't. Nobody sets up a web service in order to find loopholes in the GPL.
This is the FSF engaging in creeping authoritarianism, as could have been predicted. "Oh noes!" they say "People are using freedoms we did not explicitly allow them to have! We must stop that immediately! Release the hounds!".
Really, they're no different from the RIAA.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
In a distributed environment all this does is create an untenable can of worms. Consumers of the application may not have a clue that a middleware component is or is not talking to a system with such a license in place. People are already rewriting software due to license differences between GPL, LGPL and perhaps soon GPLv3. Lets keep expanding the fragmentation as this situation contributes positivly to the world. Oh wait...no it doesn't...oh ..oops..
FSF licenses make it impossible to force work done with the software and not embedding parts of thw software to be controlled.
So with all the force and control, where the fuck is the freedom? It's pretty clear where the FSF's emphasis is, and it's pretty much the same as the RIAA's.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
I can think of a number of reasons why many projects won't go with this. Imagine this scenario
I start contributing to an open source project, such as a web app. My contributions are released under...say... GPLv2.
I am also a consultant or run my own business. As a service, I modify and setup the application to meet my clients needs. I'm really good at this 'cause I know the software well. My clients get a good product that meets their needs of reasonable privacy, and they can choose what portions of the modifications they wish to release under GPLv2.
With AGPL, the same process breaks down. My client is not happy when I tell them I have to release the entirety of their customized web app, back to the public under AGPL. Their competitor copies it, and my client goes out of business and doesn't hire me anymore. Not good.
Some web apps are in favor of the GPLv2 model as they already have plenty of contributions, and get more meaningful enhancements committed, if they know that the people doing the work are going to go a modify it later, for private use. Case in point, Drupal.
RMS founded FSF to protect computer users. GPL protected users until the proliferation of the Web made it possible to run a modified program on a network without revealing the source. The new AGPLv3 not only protects users but it also protects Web 2.0 businesses. For example, if I release the code of a blog site under GPL then I run the risk of a competitor improving the code to run a better site without revealing their source. But with AGPLv3, businesses can now safely release the code of their Web 2.0 sites without worrying about competitors. This creates a technological equality in the marketplace where the most successful sites will be those offering the best customer care, or the most sane privacy policies etc, which is actually what matters most in a Web business. How many times did you feel you had to use the services of a site which you disliked some of their policies but offered some features (ie technology) not present in competing sites? If competitors get to compete on customer care and the quality of offered products rather than technical features, then this will be good for the marketplace overall. Furthermore, with the greater adoption of Web 2.0, more and more of your software is going to be network-based, so at some point in the future instead of Matlab, Photoshop, and SPSS you will simply access a website. How would you feel if your mathematical and statistical calculations were done by software which you could not verify their source code because it is hidden behind the network? What if a future voting platform uses networked software? What if all future computers work with a network OS? Users get no protection when their software inner workings are hidden behind a network. AGPLv3 is one of the most wonderful developments in copyleft (but of course credit has to go Affero as well for conceiving the first Affero licence), and I actually immediately started offering generous discounts to any client of my software consulting business willing to release the resulting work under AGPLv3, and actually my discount rate for AGPLv3 is higher than that of classic GPL.
Disclaimer: I am a Contributing Member of the FSF.
Also, I don't like how they're redoing the outer planes, and the inclusion of miniatures rules is a big pain, especially when they're selling miniatures like Magic Cards, as artificially scarce collectibles.
Wait, what?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
... a lawyer
I don't think this license is valid at all.
Should a user decide to breach this license, what crime will they have committed?
Can I, as the manufacturer of an item, place restrictions such as this on its use without a contract? Can the LEGO people put a bit of paper in their boxes which requires copyright on anything you build with their blocks to be licensed back to them? Is that in any way enforceable?
Do we believe that the right to modify the products we buy should be in the hands of the manufacturers of these products? Is it a crime that people unlock their iphones and use them on a different network?
Surely, if these AGPL conditions are valid, then Apple should be able to prohibit the use of the iPhone on non-licensed networks simply by including a piece of paper in the box that says you may not do that. In fact, they probably do, but what crime are you committing by using a product in a manner not approved of by the manufacturer? And what is their recourse when this license is breached?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
GPL: "Hi, I just got this binary tarball from you, and I can see in the license file that it's a GPL application. Please send me the source, too."
AGPL: "Hi, I see you're running a website, and I believe that you're running some software that's licensed under the AGPL, and, further, I believe that you're running a slightly modified version of it. Can you document for me that every server in your fleet is, in fact, not running any non-publicly-released versions of this software I believe you're running?"
This is either unenforceable, or it will be an incredible pain in the ass for any public website out there.
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
U ANAL?
The way I read the thumbnail sketch at first (and I'll need time to read and re-read the actual license to truly understand) was that if you use an AGPL licensed piece in your system, you would now be obligated to make it (and any changes, of course) available to the *users* of your website, thus allowing them to setup their own website, either to compete on the public net or for security on the private net.
This actually seems to fit in well with the way the FSF thinks. After all, the point of the GPL is to ensure you can't be locked in, you can use, learn, modify, distribute, etc. How is running web based software really any different in the grand scheme of things? You can get locked into a proprietary website just as you can to a proprietary OS (to one degree or another). So why not require that web applications be 'virally infected' by a license that guarantees and protects the rights of the users of the software? Sounds like the 'logical' progression of copyleft...
Not saying I promote that or agree with it. Just sharing my original impressions on the synopsis.
Scott Dale Robison