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....
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
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. GreedyBastardCompany wants to use it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL.
Fixed for you. This version of the GPL goes above and beyond what the GPL has traditionally concerned itself with, distribution.
So I'm wondering, do you have to provide the source code only if the user can directly use the program through a web service or does it account for indirect access? If I'm taking advantage of a service my webhost provides and through that offering some functionality to users who visit my site do I need to obtain the source for that service from my webhost and then pass it along to the user (assuming it's covered by the APL of course)?
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
What really disturbs me is that if someone makes use of, say Perl modules, released under AGPL, even if you're not directly using them, and not even aware, this makes all your custom app code AGPL too?
Or this is LGLP-like license, where you can freely use LGPL libraries and keep custom code private?
Can someone explain if this is going to happen?
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!