Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF Releases AGPL License For Web Services

Posted by kdawson on from the when-view-source-isn't-enough dept.

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."

14 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. "The license extends copyright to Web apps" by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....
    1. Re:"The license extends copyright to Web apps" by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can someone explain exactly how a license can extend Copyright?
      I think the author of TFA meant copyleft.
    2. Re:"The license extends copyright to Web apps" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Normally, copyright wants nothing to do with web apps. It's like, "Oh my gosh! This PHP code is total shit! I won't have a thing to do with it. It's just dirty!". Other times it's like, "This enterprise Java app is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too over-engineered. We have factory classes for generating factory classes for generating factory classes for generating objects that wrap the native boolean datatype. Fuck this stupidity!" Then it goes home and watches TV.

      So a group like the FSF will have to come along and rough up copyright a little bit. Only if copyright is legally forced to deal with the mess that are web apps will it bother to do so. Even then, I'm thinking it'll resist somewhat, since I'm pretty sure it doesn't want to have to associate with such pathetic programming.

  2. really? by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:really? by DirtyHerring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. GreedyBastardCompany wants to use and change it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL.

    2. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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)?

  3. Might be usefull for companies too... by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Ug by pat+mcguire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Depends a bit on what you do by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Depends a bit on what you do by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      Well you can relicense it and remove the AGPL license at a whim, and relicense it as you like.

      This license is targeted pretty much at developers like myself; I have a project called phpDiplomacy, and it's currently licensed under BSD.
      Using the GPL seemed pointless, because I'm not worried about people selling the code. I am only concerned about someone taking the code, modifying it, running it on their server and making money off it, but not releasing the changes. Because it's a server-side app they wouldn't have to distribute the source to make money off it, so they have no reason to distribute changes.
      So for me having a license was only about making sure people couldn't take the code and claim they wrote it, and that's pretty much all BSD does.

      I'll probably move from BSD to AGPL now, once I've read it over thoroughly (and hopefully once it becomes OSS approved), and I can definitely remove the BSD license (or any other license) from my own software. I can add and remove licenses as I please, as the copyright holder.
      The only restriction on me is that if someone already has a BSD licensed copy now I can't say "Your copy is now AGPL licensed", I can only license future releases differently.

      (IANAL YMMV)
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Depends a bit on what you do by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!
  6. No you troll by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Is this an EULA? by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  8. AGPL is not enforceable (Re:Is this an EULA?) by john1040 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.