A lot of the data that a web service sends to the data is client-side code, and even the rest of the markup transmitted was mostly created by the developer of the web service code. I think it is this distribution of code that allows the AGPL to put requirements on the operator of the web service. If they go through and replace all the data that is transmitted to the user, then I guess they could ignore the AGPL since they are not distributing anything that is covered by copyright law.
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?
I'm not sure about that one, but even if it were true...
That's like making a GPL paint program that forces users to release pictures created with that program under GPL.
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.
Seriously, what's wrong with taggers? "hype", "vaporware", "advert" on an article about a new processor, this isn't the Slashdot that I know and love. Turn off tags, they're just another vector for trolling.
Any evidence can be fabricated. Drugs can be stuffed in your pockets. DNA can be switched around by the testing lab. At some level you have to trust the people presenting the evidence.
This is a freaking video game. You don't have to play it if you don't want to.
It isn't so simple as that. Even if you aren't addicted to the game itself in the classic sense, there are friendships at stake. While the number of friends I have made through Warcraft isn't that large, neither is my current circle of real-life friends due to my work situation. Of the people that I have social contact with every month, more than half are online through Warcraft. I could count it a lot higher than that, but I wouldn't count all the people I chat with as proper friends.
An encryption key can't destroy data. If the encryption software that you used has a feature that does this, then all they have to do is remove that feature from the software and replace it with a "Corruption key detected" print statement. The TrueCrypt solution mentioned by others is great, you give them the key that opens the "normal" volume, that just contains some regular porn or some old bank statements.
Well the problem is.. you're talking about how to hide evidence of a crime, when the real issue is how to preserve privacy in non-crime but potentially embarrassing cases, or just to keep your financial data as private as possible.
No, they're talking about hiding information on animal rights activism and civil disobedience activities from the authorities who are trying to create a police state. I don't accept the "if you aren't a criminal then you have nothing to hide" position.
No it doesn't! A licence can't change the law, and that's important because of the things that software vendors put into their licences - no reverse engineering, no criticism, etc.
If you multi-licence your product, say under the GPL and the Artistic Licence like Perl is, then the recipient can choose which licence they accept. If I just violate your copyright and disregard both licences, which one should automatically apply to my code?
That's why I said *PL, I include the GPL in that. However, getting a judge to accept this principle will be tough, they are likely to say "well, you were giving it away anyway, so there aren't any monetary damages, what are you complaining about?" It's an educational challenge, and most judges are old and out of touch with such concepts.
It isn't. If you write some code, and I rip it off, then whether or not you distributed it with some licence or other is irrelevant to the copyright violation that I have committed. Your generosity does not make my crime any less or any worse, and should not affect the punishment that is given.
Lack of diligence is not an excuse for plagiarism. I don't know what university you've attended, but at mine, if you copy a source verbatim and do not cite it, you'll fail the paper. Likewise, if you copy a source verbatim in the "real world", you get sued. It is most fucking reasonable for the author to be sued for his carelessness.
Of course, I never said it wasn't reasonable to sue the "author", but ruling that his entire book must be retrospectively GFDL licenced would be unreasonable in my (non-Lawyer) opinion. I'm a Wikipedia contributor, and I love the idea of the GNU project and Free Software in general, but I wouldn't go that far.
I place a high value on the rights granted to the public under LGPL and CC licenses and comparatively much less value on private copyright rights to prevent the public from copying.
I agree with that, and it's very well put. Getting that philosophy to be more widely understood and accepted is a challenge.
No, licences do not automatically apply, the *PL and CC* licences are not viral. If I copy your work and disregard the licence, then I have violated your copyright, and you can take me to court. If you released it under a particular licence, then that is pretty much irrelevant to me - if I didn't follow the licence, then I have simply violated your copyright. This author may well have asked a researcher or even a member of his family to come up with a couple of paragraphs about that incident and they copied Wikipedia, it would be unreasonable for the author's entire book to become freely available under the LGPL due to his carelessness in not checking the actions of a third party. A judge might come up with a reasonable compromise, such as ruling that the modified version of the text as appears in the book must be licenced under the LGPL and made available on the publisher's web site for download, and that future printings must credit the Wikipedia article as the source on which the text is based.
But if you chose to place your work under, say, the Creative Commons, you've just told the world at large, "here, take it and use it as you wish, I don't want anything in return, I don't forbid anything, have fun with it."
They neither wanted nor did that, the Wikipedia text is under the GFDL which requires attribution of source. The WP author mentioned released his contribution to the public domain, but the wider Wikipedia community has the right to be outraged that this writer a) plagiarised Wikipedia and b) didn't credit the authors of the text that he plagiarised. He claimed the words as his own, which is unlawful in many copyright jurisdictions regardless of any licence that the original author may have used. If the publisher sells that book in Finland, then they could find themselves in hot water. And I don't mean a nice invigorating sauna.
Not that "interesting" really. Saying that it "must be" under the GFDL isn't the same as saying that it automatically is under the GFDL. They are in violation of copyright, plain and simple, the GFDL doesn't automatically apply to the whole book, that's crazy talk. It's then up to the lawyers or the courts to come up with a suitable violation penalty and a solution going forward.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the data that a web service sends to the data is client-side code, and even the rest of the markup transmitted was mostly created by the developer of the web service code. I think it is this distribution of code that allows the AGPL to put requirements on the operator of the web service. If they go through and replace all the data that is transmitted to the user, then I guess they could ignore the AGPL since they are not distributing anything that is covered by copyright law.
Yeah, you're right, the FSF article does overload the term "user" in an unhelpful way.
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.
Seriously, what's wrong with taggers? "hype", "vaporware", "advert" on an article about a new processor, this isn't the Slashdot that I know and love. Turn off tags, they're just another vector for trolling.
Any evidence can be fabricated. Drugs can be stuffed in your pockets. DNA can be switched around by the testing lab. At some level you have to trust the people presenting the evidence.
Until they strap you to a lie detector, and then throw you in jail despite your denials.
An encryption key can't destroy data. If the encryption software that you used has a feature that does this, then all they have to do is remove that feature from the software and replace it with a "Corruption key detected" print statement. The TrueCrypt solution mentioned by others is great, you give them the key that opens the "normal" volume, that just contains some regular porn or some old bank statements.
No it doesn't! A licence can't change the law, and that's important because of the things that software vendors put into their licences - no reverse engineering, no criticism, etc.
If you multi-licence your product, say under the GPL and the Artistic Licence like Perl is, then the recipient can choose which licence they accept. If I just violate your copyright and disregard both licences, which one should automatically apply to my code?
That's why I said *PL, I include the GPL in that. However, getting a judge to accept this principle will be tough, they are likely to say "well, you were giving it away anyway, so there aren't any monetary damages, what are you complaining about?" It's an educational challenge, and most judges are old and out of touch with such concepts.
It isn't. If you write some code, and I rip it off, then whether or not you distributed it with some licence or other is irrelevant to the copyright violation that I have committed. Your generosity does not make my crime any less or any worse, and should not affect the punishment that is given.
No, licences do not automatically apply, the *PL and CC* licences are not viral. If I copy your work and disregard the licence, then I have violated your copyright, and you can take me to court. If you released it under a particular licence, then that is pretty much irrelevant to me - if I didn't follow the licence, then I have simply violated your copyright. This author may well have asked a researcher or even a member of his family to come up with a couple of paragraphs about that incident and they copied Wikipedia, it would be unreasonable for the author's entire book to become freely available under the LGPL due to his carelessness in not checking the actions of a third party. A judge might come up with a reasonable compromise, such as ruling that the modified version of the text as appears in the book must be licenced under the LGPL and made available on the publisher's web site for download, and that future printings must credit the Wikipedia article as the source on which the text is based.
They neither wanted nor did that, the Wikipedia text is under the GFDL which requires attribution of source. The WP author mentioned released his contribution to the public domain, but the wider Wikipedia community has the right to be outraged that this writer a) plagiarised Wikipedia and b) didn't credit the authors of the text that he plagiarised. He claimed the words as his own, which is unlawful in many copyright jurisdictions regardless of any licence that the original author may have used. If the publisher sells that book in Finland, then they could find themselves in hot water. And I don't mean a nice invigorating sauna.
Not that "interesting" really. Saying that it "must be" under the GFDL isn't the same as saying that it automatically is under the GFDL. They are in violation of copyright, plain and simple, the GFDL doesn't automatically apply to the whole book, that's crazy talk. It's then up to the lawyers or the courts to come up with a suitable violation penalty and a solution going forward.
Actually, those coords aren't from the beeb, I got them by looking up "Lake Cheko" on Wikipedia.
Whereas this is where the BBC reported it was back in June.
Google map of the point that the National Geographic map link goes to
Yeah, TROGDOR! is a classic, but I also like POPULATION: TIRE.
Thanks
We didn't expect a full review and I'm not pissed off or anything, but it read like a review.
...but it just makes my screen go crazy when I launch it. Maybe great, definitely buggy.