Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If being usable in an SSH session counts as "supporting" remote > interaction "through a computer network", then basically every program > supports such interaction! You're right, ssh was a bad example, probably not covered by clause 13. > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > >> Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found, >> the embedded device's network interface could say "contact this >> person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone" and then >> that other contact could provide the source over a network, since all >> the device has to offer is an "opportunity". > > I don't think that (currently) qualifies as "standard or customary > means of facilitating copying of software"... I was joking when I said the docks part, but a link saying "contact us, we'll get you the source" and that link actually takes you to a place where the source can eventually be found, maybe after talking with humans, does seem like a more or less customary method of distribution (not sure about the humans in between bit). - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: [...] > If on the other hand you let the other user interact with your laptop > through a network (say, they ssh into it), then clause 13 of the AGPL > applies. I am not following you here. Section 13 of the AfferoGPLv3 states, in part: | if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer | all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if | your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the | Corresponding Source If being usable in an SSH session counts as "supporting" remote interaction "through a computer network", then basically every program supports such interaction! This would mean that any AfferoGPLv3'ed program must comply with the restrictions of section 13, even when it is not designed to be used through a network. I mean, if some AfferoGPLv3'ed code is included in a modified version of, say, OpenOffice.org, the modifier has to offer access to the whole Corresponding Source, if he/she installs his/her modified version on a box with an SSH server and at least one other user... I seem to remember that the parenthetical "(if your version supports such interaction)" is there just to avoid to extend the restriction to programs not specifically designed for network use. But maybe I am wrong. If I am wrong, the AfferoGPLv3 is even worse than I thought! [...] > Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found, > the embedded device's network interface could say "contact this > person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone" and then > that other contact could provide the source over a network, since all > the device has to offer is an "opportunity". I don't think that (currently) qualifies as "standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software"... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9n5NM5ZGYw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Miriam Ruiz wrote: >> Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? > > The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source > distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test. I know. The point is that there must be some way to satisfy simultaneously all the DFSG to consider a license free. The idea to use a free web repository for the code was so that the non-discrimination of user groups -because of the increase in cost- was guaranteed. We seem to be exchanging that with the non-availability for use in any case, as in the case of a dissident. I was just stating that. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test. The life of a dissident is a complicated and difficult one. The fact that they cannot avail themselves of the most convenient and lowest cost methods of distributing the source code to their free software is, I suggest, but a minor consideration in their thinking. They probably can't avail themselves of the lowest cost and most convenient forms of transport either (e.g. Oyster cards in London). > Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a > modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to > reveal the identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the > modifications themselves, or even possession of the program, to the > government. So he can have a "Download source" link on his web interface. This does not require revealing anything to anyone who is not one of his "fellow dissidents" who is using the web interface. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] >>> >>> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and >>> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. >>> Which services allow anonymous hosting? >> >> I just found a few. Sharesource.org and Intuxication.org only require >> an email address (Sharesource.org has a field for name, but you can >> leave it blank), and intuxication.org doesn't even require the email >> address to be valid (I just registered right now with [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The >> service freehg.org doesn't require any of these. Alternatively, you >> can always put a pseudonym in the name fields. > > Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? In this case, yes. If you provide a network interface that the dissident's government can see, then you've already revealed possession of the program itself. You can exclude access to certain undesirables by hiding the network interface behind a password authentication system. This is no different than having to distribute source to fellow dissenters if you give them a modified binary on a CD. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] >> >> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and >> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. >> Which services allow anonymous hosting? > > I just found a few. Sharesource.org and Intuxication.org only require > an email address (Sharesource.org has a field for name, but you can > leave it blank), and intuxication.org doesn't even require the email > address to be valid (I just registered right now with [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The > service freehg.org doesn't require any of these. Alternatively, you > can always put a pseudonym in the name fields. Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test? Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications themselves, or even possession of the program, to the government. Any requirement for sending source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger. For Debian to consider software free it must not require any such excess distribution. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/9/2 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my >> > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the >> > DFSG?" >> >> Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that >> the condition of distributing source over a network could be >> prohibitively expensive? > > This question matters if - as some claim - there is no longer a useful > distinction between network and personal computing. Although I think the spirit of the AGPL is to significantly blur that distinction, it clearly doesn't, as for example it excludes a network interface from its definition of "convey". If on your laptop you modify the software and you lend your laptop to someone, then you haven't conveyed the work unless that other person can copy the software off your laptop, and you could always restrict access to that if you don't want to convey the source. If on the other hand you let the other user interact with your laptop through a network (say, they ssh into it), then clause 13 of the AGPL applies. > I am wondering (I am undecided, remember) whether the condition of > distributing source over a network has an unavoidable cost. I don't > think the size of that cost is important. If there is an unavoidable cost, you can transfer the cost to third parties like code hosting sites. >> Please correct me if I'm strawmanning you, but this is ridiculous. > > I'm not sure whether it's strawmanning me, but I feel it's a bit close > to a personal attack. I've bared my thoughts and all I got was this > lousy ridicule. Sorry, I get excited, but I wasn't trying to ridicule you, just claim that an idea (that happened to be yours) was ridiculous. Hate the idea, love the idealer? ;-) >> I don't understand why embedded systems have anything to do with it. >> You just have to put the code up somewhere on some network server if >> you are distributing your application's interface over a network. The >> server hosting the code doesn't even have to be your own, just put it >> on Sourceforge or one of the zillions code hosting servers out there. > > I think then you have to make the embedded system phone home and check > that the source source is still up before it offers network service. The AGPL provides all of the same terms as the GPL for conveying source before you provide a network interface. What could be done with the embedded device is to very briefly send a message over the network (bluetooth or whatever) that says "check your distribution, we already provided the source." I think the phrase "through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software" allows this, but maybe I'm stretching the meaning of that phrase. Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found, the embedded device's network interface could say "contact this person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone" and then that other contact could provide the source over a network, since all the device has to offer is an "opportunity". Or you could do both, check this site, and if that fails, try this contact. >> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] > > I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and > Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. > Which services allow anonymous hosting? I just found a few. Sharesource.org and Intuxication.org only require an email address (Sharesource.org has a field for name, but you can leave it blank), and intuxication.org doesn't even require the email address to be valid (I just registered right now with [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The service freehg.org doesn't require any of these. Alternatively, you can always put a pseudonym in the name fields. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to > think about quite seriously. I meant Don's concerns, sorry. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We >> (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped >> distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at >> any time that the application is used. The GPL does not. > > The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source. > > If Debian distributes their packaged version, and that version is served by > a 3rd party for other users unmodified, that 3rd party is not bound by the > distribution terms of section 13. Note the phrase "if you modify the > Program". I guess that Arc is technically correct here. AGPLv3 in section 13th says: "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction)..." So, legally, if Debian modifies the program, it can be released in the same condition as it was with GPLv3, as Debian's package itself is not being run, only conveyed, and thus there are no users interacting with it. On the other side, a user that uses the program unmodified, does not have to comply with this section unless they modify the program. Thus, if Debian is the only one making modifications, section 13th doesn't apply to any of them. As we have already discussed [1], this might not always be like this. Arc said that "It's of course impossible to cover every potential scenario. The FSF has said that they expect more frequent license releases as the need arises.", so it's quite possible that this scenario (having the possibility of using the fact that the user and the person modifying it being different people to avoid section 13, which would be quite trivial to do) might change in the future. I guess that, even when Arc is right in that the current wording of AGPLv3 lets Debian avoid having to keep an archive of all the versions released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to think about quite seriously. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00081.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > MJ Ray wrote: > "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them > privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they > exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to > notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way." > > Where does the AGPL interfere with either of the two sentences here? The > right to private modifications for your own use is maintained, and the > right to publish without specific notification is also maintained. I guess that the source of non-agreement here is what each of us understands by "use them privately". It seems that some of the people here consider that making any kind of usage of a computer network implies public usage, while some of use believe that it depends on what kind of relationship is between the program and the entity at the other end, in the sense that it's not the same to use a service provided by a web app or, in the case of PySoy, to remotely play the game, than to interact with a network just as a peer there, as for example in the case of an IRC client. The line might be quite thin here, so it might be hard to reach an agreement in this. I think that if you use a program without providing a service to remote users, even though you might be interacting with them in some way, or even downloading information from them, but not providing them an active service, that should be still interpreted as "private use". Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
MJ Ray wrote: >> It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to offer it. >> In other words, the app you let them use might have a "Save Source" >> link, but they are responsible for bringing the USB stick. > > If that were the case, it would be fine if the AGPLv3 app on my > webserver had a "source" link but anyone clicking it has to pay the > cost of the data transfer, or connect their own network link cable to > my webserver. I don't think that's the intent. No, it's not. The point is you have to offer it. That means different things if you are sitting at the machine to if you are at the other end of a network. > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html says "The freedom to > run the program, for any purpose" and "The freedom to study how the > program works, and adapt it to your needs" but "as long as you offer > to distribute copies to all its users" isn't on either of them. > > So, it boils down to whether it's acceptable to limit the freedoms of > the hosting user in order to increase the freedoms of the non-hosting > users. That's certainly one way to put it. In fact, the BSD guys' beef with the GPL is that it does exactly this - limits the freedom of the giver to increase the freedom of the recipient. AGPL takes that idea a step further. > That essay says later:- > > "The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of > person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for > any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate > subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity." > > Specific entities like users? If you replace "specific entity" with "users", you get the tautological: "The freedom for ... a [user] .. to use it ... without being required to communicate subsequently with ... users." This paragraph is addressed to users, not developers. Someone *using* an AGPL program isn't required to communicate with anyone else; the AGPL just requires that they have an opportunity to download source. > It also notes the importance of the > choice to publish the program, which AGPLv3 also limits. "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way." Where does the AGPL interfere with either of the two sentences here? The right to private modifications for your own use is maintained, and the right to publish without specific notification is also maintained. What is forbidden is private modifications for the use of others without giving them the modifications. In the single-computer case, that's a clear GPLv2 violation. AGPL extends that to the two-computer case. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: > The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source. The things that Debian distributes which are not modified are vanishingly small (and all of the examples I can think of are cases where Debian Developers are the upstream too.) So we're going to be discussing things which are modified in all cases. > If Debian distributes their packaged version, and that version is > served by a 3rd party for other users unmodified, that 3rd party is > not bound by the distribution terms of section 13. If this is actually the proper interpretation, then it renders the AGPL useless in its entirety. In short, this is the idea that section 13 only applies at the time of modification, and so long as the propagation of source works at that instant, everything is good. It's an interesting theory, and probably one that should be run by the FSF, since I'm certain it was not the intent of the drafters at all. > Further, I do not read in the license that distribution of source > *must* happen when the application is used. You have to make it > available on a remote server, that is all. That server goes down, A server which is down does not "provid[e] access to the Corresponding Source". > yes it's a problem you need to solve, but it's not like the lawyers > come out. If it's not being made available, you're in violation of the AGPL, and are subject to the terms of Section 8. If it's your first time, you have a 30 day grace period to cure the breech, but the second time can be fatal. So yes, the lawyers can come out and play immediately if they wish. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/2 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my > > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the > > DFSG?" > > Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that > the condition of distributing source over a network could be > prohibitively expensive? This question matters if - as some claim - there is no longer a useful distinction between network and personal computing. The question is trying to apply the AGPL's network use/distribution clause to personal computing. If we accept that there is no distinction and that the AGPL is free, it seems very probable that someone will soon try a licence that behaves like the above and claim it's free software. I am wondering (I am undecided, remember) whether the condition of distributing source over a network has an unavoidable cost. I don't think the size of that cost is important. > Pleae correct me if I'm strawmanning you, but this is ridiculous. I'm not sure whether it's strawmanning me, but I feel it's a bit close to a personal attack. I've bared my thoughts and all I got was this lousy ridicule. > [...] Sure, if your site is slashdotted with source requests, that's > a problem, but this could happen just as well with the GPL as it it > could with the AGPL. [...] It doesn't necessarily happen with the GPL, thanks to the multiple choices in clause 6 and the possibility of choosing to use but not distribute. The AGPL source distribution condition is also an order of magnitude bigger than the GPL's: all users > all recipients. > I don't understand why embedded systems have anything to do with it. > You just have to put the code up somewhere on some network server if > you are distributing your application's interface over a network. The > server hosting the code doesn't even have to be your own, just put it > on Sourceforge or one of the zillions code hosting servers out there. I think then you have to make the embedded system phone home and check that the source source is still up before it offers network service. > I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...] I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name. Which services allow anonymous hosting? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
