Re: First draft of AGPL v3
Francesco Poli wrote: Bad: no clear definition of remote users The term user is not clearly defined. Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have alternative language? Do you know how the corresponding clause in the current Affero license has historically been interpreted? This ambiguity is really problematic, as it implies that there's no clear way to tell whether a modified version supports remote interaction, and hence there's no clear way to tell whether it is subject to the restriction specified by this section. It's not that bad. If I turn some AGPLed code into a local graphics-editing application which has no network capabilities, it's fairly clear that it doesn't apply. But then, what happens if I access that desktop using remote X? Hmm... Let's say the clause instead said that anyone who interacts with the work had to get access to the corresponding source, full stop (no network need be involved). Would that be less ambiguous, I wonder? (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it This restriction compels whoever runs the modified version of the Program to accommodate the source code on the server or, alternatively, to set up and maintain a separate network server to provide source code: this may be a significant cost in some cases. I don't understand this argument. Having to provide CDs of source or fulfil the terms of a written offer is also a significant cost, but no-one thinks that makes the GPL non-free. This is ultimately a use restriction (from the point of view of whoever runs the modified version of the Program) What does it prevent you using the Program for? and effectively forbids private use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. Well, it forbids public use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. :-) But of course it does - that's the point. But then the GPL forbids giving someone the use of the modified version via giving them a copy without handing them the source code at the same time. That's not a use restriction. The AGPL clearly passes the Desert Island test (and the Tentacles of Evil test). I'm not sure the current wording of the Dissident test had this situation in mind, but I think a good argument could be made that it passes. (Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed to help test against?) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First draft of AGPL v3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed to help test against?) The imaginary clause. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dissident test and DFSG (was: First draft of AGPL v3)
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed to help test against?) URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident I believe it tests against DFSG§5, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines The argument presents an example of someone who might have very good reason not to identify themselves, as a way of showing that a work which requires identification of the person as a condition to exercise the freedoms in the work does thereby discriminate against such a person. -- \ He who allows oppression, shares the crime. -- Erasmus | `\ Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First draft of AGPL v3
Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 23:57 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it A better wording would then be: ... an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source under the same conditions as those of using the Program. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Knowledgetree Public License [KPL] v1.1.1
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:02:28 + Joe Nahmias wrote: Hello -legal, I recently came across Knowledgetree which is a web-based document management system. There is a (very old) version of it currently in Debian that is licensed under the GPL2. However, it seems that newer versions are licensed under what they call the KPL [ see http://www.knowledgetree.com/KPL/KPL_License ] which is a derivative of the MPL. Not a good start, as the MPL does *not* meet the DFSG, in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of other debian-legal regulars. Discussions about the MPL can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00551.html Of particular interest is the new Exhibit/Appendix B: KnowledgeTree Public License 1.1.1 - Exihibit B Additional Terms applicable to the KnowledgeTree Public License. [...] However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the KnowledgeTree Document Management Made Simple logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by The Jam Warehouse Software (Pty) Ltd. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the KnowledgeTree Document Management Made Simple logo must be visible to all users and be located at the top right-hand corner of each user interface screen, other than the user log-in page, on which it must be located at the top-center of the user log-in form. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the KnowledgeTree Document Management Made Simple logo must be at least 200 x 40 pixels. When users click on the KnowledgeTree Document Management Made Simple logo it must direct them back to http://www.knowledgetree.com. In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.knowledgetree.com These additional restrictions are definitely non-free, IMO, since they heavily limit the freedom to modify the interface (DFSG#3). Moreover, there's the possible contradiction issue pointed out by Michael Below in his reply, which could make the software undistributable (without a separate additional license for the logo)... This reads to my inexperienced eye as a particularly heavy-handed form of the good old BSD advertising clause, Far worse than the obnoxious advertising clause, I would say... which irrespective of anything else would send this straight to non-free. I would like to approach upstream about modifying the licensing in accordance with the DFSG. Not being very familiar with the MPL, aside from this clause, what else do I need to address with them? My advice is try and persuade upstream to switch back to the GNU GPL v2, since fixing each MPL issue would be a too long and error-prone process. Thanks in advance for your help. --Joe You're welcome. The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. PS - Please cc me as I do not subscribe to -legal Done. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpVs0TQqve6p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First draft of AGPL v3
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:24:43 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 23:57 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it A better wording would then be: ... an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source under the same conditions as those of using the Program. I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand what you mean. Could you elaborate, please? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpVPgQANBkyW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First draft of AGPL v3
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:33:44 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Bad: no clear definition of remote users The term user is not clearly defined. Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have alternative language? I cannot have *alternative* language, since there currently is *no* language to define the term user at all... ;-) Seriously: I think it's really hard to reasonably define what a remote user is or should be. I don't have a proposed definition, because everytime I try to think of one, I find myself trapped in blurred boundaries and don't know where to draw the line (or how to get back home!). Do you know how the corresponding clause in the current Affero license has historically been interpreted? No idea... This ambiguity is really problematic, as it implies that there's no clear way to tell whether a modified version supports remote interaction, and hence there's no clear way to tell whether it is subject to the restriction specified by this section. It's not that bad. If I turn some AGPLed code into a local graphics-editing application which has no network capabilities, it's fairly clear that it doesn't apply. But then, what happens if I access that desktop using remote X? Hmm... Indeed. Moreover, what if I turn the AGPLed code into an OS kernel? Let's say the clause instead said that anyone who interacts with the work had to get access to the corresponding source, full stop (no network need be involved). Would that be less ambiguous, I wonder? Less ambiguous, maybe, but worse for sure, since it would extend the restriction to any use of the modified program. And all the issues with kiosks, pay-toll machines, arcade games, and so forth, would come back (as for the AfferoGPL v1). (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it This restriction compels whoever runs the modified version of the Program to accommodate the source code on the server or, alternatively, to set up and maintain a separate network server to provide source code: this may be a significant cost in some cases. I don't understand this argument. Having to provide CDs of source or fulfil the terms of a written offer is also a significant cost, but no-one thinks that makes the GPL non-free. The restriction in the GPL is about the act of conveying copies of the work. The restriction in the AGPL is about *using* the modified work: there's a cost associated with *use*... This is ultimately a use restriction (from the point of view of whoever runs the modified version of the Program) What does it prevent you using the Program for? If the source doesn't fit in the server the modified version runs on (think of small embedded systems, for instance), I have to set up a separate server to provide source to remote users. In order to *run* the modified version of the Program! If I cannot afford setting up a separate server, I cannot use the modified version on a network! and effectively forbids private use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. Well, it forbids public use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. :-) But of course it does - that's the point. But then the GPL forbids giving someone the use of the modified version via giving them a copy without handing them the source code at the same time. That's not a use restriction. As I said above, the GPL restricts the act of conveying, the AGPL also restricts the use of modified versions of the Program. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpwdUdNDSuLY.pgp Description: PGP signature
