Slashdot Mirror
Freeside Internet Services: Doing Well With Purely Free Software (Video)
While attending ITEXPO West in Austin, TX, Slashdot editor Timothy Lord met Ivan Kohler, the "President, Founder and Head Geek" of a company called Freeside Internet Services that is 100% open source (no dual-licensing) and makes its living supporting software Ivan says is used to manage some of the very unsexy backend tasks that ISPs and VoIP providers need to do, like track usage and send bills to customers. Freeside uses the AGPL license, which Ivan calls "a GPL variant for web applications" that, he says, "prevents people from taking our software, modifying it, and selling it in a hosted capacity as proprietary software."
I think we all know what the AGPL is.
And if you're worried we might not, you could give a link (like I just did, or this), instead of some random person's summary.
On the other hand, even if its all as you describe, the only way to make it worse would be to charge for it.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
TFS mentions that Freeside makes their money on support. Here's the caveat - you need it.
I spent a full work week, with the assitance of several high level (in charge of thousands of servers, been doing it for 10+ years) admins and perl programmers (Freeside's native tounge) attempting to install it. To put it shortly, the documentation is terrible. I discovered over seventy undocumented modules, not including those modules required modules, that were required simply to even install the thing. We spoke to one of the developers on the project who basically told us this difficulty was intended and let us know he'd be extremely impressed if we got it installed without his help.
So yea, it's free... If you don't mind either paying them to install it or spending an inordinate amount of time installing and configuring it.
Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
This is an actual factual example of how the Affero GPL IS DAMN USEFUL for GPL'd code.
In addition to the terms of the GPL, You violate the AGPL when you (1) copy the source code and (2) modify it (3) host the modified version over the network and (4) don't provide source for your modifications. Since by default (1) is a copyright violation if there isn't an explicit permission to do so, if you say you don't agree to the AGPL, then you don't have permission to do (1) either. So if you do the above, you can't claim that you didn't agree to the terms of the AGPL without acknowledging copyright infringement.
I'd argue LINUX, for the n00b, is only free if your time is not
on to their systems.
That's a copyright violation right there.
I actually had Ivan install Freeside and train the staff when I was still running a dialup ISP. The software is a bear to install, but mainly because it is so massive a piece of software. At the end of the day, Freeside saved us a ton of man hours by automating most of the administrative tasks like account suspension and billing. Since I used it last Freeside has gotten loads of new functionality. It was well worth the initial cost of having Ivan come out and install, transfer our old accounting info, and train the staff.
No I don't work for Freeside or Slashdot.
IANAL, but I think the AGPL is pretty solid. The Ninth Circuit held in MAI v. Peak that copying software into RAM for execution is indeed copying, and the provisions of 17 USC 117(a) don't apply to mere licensees (as opposed to copyright owners). Being that the AGPL license, which allows you to use, copy, and modify the software, only remains valid if you continue to comply with its terms, you are infringing copyright by continuing to copy the software into RAM for purposes of executing it if you're not abiding by the license. You have no right to copy the software otherwise.
In addition to the terms of the GPL, You violate the AGPL when you (1) copy the source code and (2) modify it (3) host the modified version over the network and (4) don't provide source for your modifications.
Since by default (1) is a copyright violation if there isn't an explicit permission to do so, if you say you don't agree to the AGPL, then you don't have permission to do (1) either. So if you do the above, you can't claim that you didn't agree to the terms of the AGPL without acknowledging copyright infringement.
Eh, no. There's no copy necessarily involved. When you download it, the copying happens at the server, you just receive a copy. And the transient copies due to network buffers, untarring, loading from disk to RAM, etc. don't count.
By your logic, CDs aren't copyrightable because you buy them but someone else makes them.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
First, the existing exemption for copies necessary to the intended use of the software (e.g. loading it to RAM to execute) didn't apply, because it was a computer repair shop, not a user.
And Congress promptly fixed that oversight.
But that wouldn't be relevant, because loading it to execute is covered under the exemption that already existed then.
The bigger issue would be about "licensee" vs. "owner". But since open-source software of whatever license is almost invariably distributed freely, with no license displayed, much less with any act of assent required, prior to download, nor prior to execution, this is weaker than a EULA.
Of the worlds financial issues. Stop putting out free software, it kills global economies. Suck it up and PAY for software...
A head geek eats chicken heads. I'm more of leg geek myself.
The MAI court held that 17 USC 117(a) wasn't applicable because the end-users were licensees--regardless of Peak's actions as a repair technician. Also see Vernor v. Autodesk for more on the difference between owner and licensee rights.
What kind of kids are modding this down?? He's exactly right. This is a pure, blatantly obvious slashvertisement.
Kids (even physically grown-up ones) who just came to this site, and don't know shit about what's going on: Go fuck yourselves, and go back to your 4RedFaceDiggTwitChanBook!
But you dont buy the cd, you buy the rights to use the cd under the terms of the eula.
Unless they wrote all the code from scratch, you may request and receive a copy for GPL'd code (and only GPL!). That was the way Freeside downloaded it and the restriction placed upon them in order to use code like Linux. You may not add further restrictions (like paying for source). Now, anything they wrote themselves, they can release under any license.
//TODO: signature
It stops someone owning the server that has the code running on it from not allowing you, the user running the code on their server, from refusing to supply you the source code for the software you are using running on their server.
So when someone wants to take Freeside's code, THAT company (hereafter called THEY) must obey the AGPL.
Since the code has to get on THEIR server, they cannot copy the code on to THEIR server without giving YOU the same rights as THEY got from Freeside. Including if that person works for Freeside or is asked by Freeside to get the code.
The AGPL is one of the most restrictive and dangerous licenses out there. it gives the ither party an implicit right to audit your code base. The AGPL is an example of purity vs relevance. all the interesting work these days is being done on bsd/apache/mit licensed code.
I didn't copy it, the guy who gave it to me did.
In both those cases, there was a mutually agreed license -- Peak's clients and the original licensees in Vernor had to indicate agreement in order to receive and/or the software.
Click this. Note that there's no requirement to agree to any license! Without indication of assent, there is no legal contract. You've just been handed a piece of copyrighted code, just like being handed a book.
From Vernor:
We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.
1 can be accomplished unilaterally by dropping a license.txt in a tarball. But 2 and 3 fail without a legally binding contract to do the restricting. No agreement, no contract. No contract, no restriction. No restriction, no "licensee" status under the Vernor test.
Copying a CD without a license = bad.
Receiving a CD = ok.
Copying a tarball without a license = bad.
Receiving a tarball = ok.
Is it hard?
all the requirements up front and delayed the install several times.
God damnit we've got a fucking MICRO$OFT $H!77 FAGGET here!
Suitable for work
I use this system at my WISP called BillMax. I didn't pick it, but I put up with it for a while. It uses fairly generic MySQL and Apache, and you get most of the source when you license it. They seem to think the only OS in the world is RHEL, though. Recently though, they've switched to a leased licensing scheme, take a lot of our money, and don't do very much for it. If I'm going to recommend giving someone a heap of dollars for making this work, I'd rather it be a real Open Source project and one that presents less restrictions on where I install it.
Has anyone used both and can comment?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your description is both disturbing and very strange. I happen to have a need for this type of software and went to their website after seeing the article (didn't read, this is Slashdot). I see a VMWare appliance offered for download. Does this appliance not work? Is it incomplete?