Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:47:59 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote: Hello Francesco, Hi. Am 2008-08-29 23:56:56, schrieb Francesco Poli: If you're really worried about this, upload it to two different free VCS services. They still may be off-line at the same time: it's less likely, but still possible. And therefore I have *two* services to monitor, to check whether I have to re-upload to a third place! :-( Are you joking? http://www.simtel.net/ http://www.linuxberg.com/ The have several 100 mirrors worldwide... No, I am not joking. The problem basically boils down to: is there a generally-accepted statement that uploading source to a public hosting service suffices for the purpose of complying with Section 13 of the AfferoGPLv3? As long as you use a public hosting service, you are offering access to source through an external service, which may be (temporarily) unavailable when a user attempts to download source. Which steps does the AfferoGPLv3 requires you (as a person who modified the application and runs it on a publicly-accessible server) to take in order to ensure you are actually offer[ing] all users [...] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version ? Maybe making source available from a public hosting service with 100 mirrors worldwide suffices. The probability of having *all* the mirrors unreachable at the same time is really close to zero (even though not zero). It could be that, in the unlikely case all the mirrors are unusable, you are excused for not making source available. This is a possible interpretation, indeed. On the other hand, it could be that you are *not* excused. If this is the right interpretation, then you have to monitor the external hosting service and immediately shut the application down, as soon as the source becomes (temporarily) unavailable. This is another possible interpretation. Without a generally-accepted statement that tells us which interpretation is the official one, we cannot know. To stay on the safe side, we should assume that the pessimistic interpretation (i.e.: the second one) is correct. Disclaimers, again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- 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 pgpDPv4ZZFETr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080921 11:20]: Maybe making source available from a public hosting service with 100 mirrors worldwide suffices. The probability of having *all* the mirrors unreachable at the same time is really close to zero (even though not zero). Unless those are mirrors from different organisations, I beg to disagree. (especially for US cooperations). Temporary mirror downtimes are not so much a problem. But we all know that at least for US based public services, all that is needed to make it vanish from all mirrors is a single DCMA notice. And to do something against it you will need to acknoledge to be bound by US law, and even then might not have very good chances. Especially as soon the service you need will decide that it's to risky for them to continue and you should search someone else to pay to cover the risks so that you can continue your service or business... And I doubt anyone is of the opinion that you will be able to download it once this lawsuite is settled is timeframe that is allowed... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Hello Francesco, Am 2008-08-29 23:56:56, schrieb Francesco Poli: If you're really worried about this, upload it to two different free VCS services. They still may be off-line at the same time: it's less likely, but still possible. And therefore I have *two* services to monitor, to check whether I have to re-upload to a third place! :-( Are you joking? http://www.simtel.net/ http://www.linuxberg.com/ The have several 100 mirrors worldwide... Also you could upload to ftp://ftp.wustel.edu/ which has a mirror in TByte sice http://you_favorte_freehosting_provider_here/ I know at least over 300 locations where you can upload your source code and binaries. Even the providers http://www.freenet.de/ and http://www.free.fr/ offering such services... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Am 2008-08-28 10:46:58, schrieb MJ Ray: So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced distribution of source code is a desirable effect, but it's distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp? I am missing words for it... :-/ Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Sorrx for the late answer but found your message blocked in my incoming queue... Am 2008-08-20 22:25:37, schrieb David Martínez Martí: On Wednesday 20 August 2008 19:53:46 Arc Riley wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, I don't believe this technical challenge of reliably hosting code poses a serious hurdle to compliance with this license. The problem with this license is, that anyone that tries to use and/or modify it must distribute it to third parties. I don't think that can be free. Even the GPL allow you to ask for a reliable fee if you want the sourcecode... I am working with a small group of Ex-Militaries and IT specialists on a Game which generaly under GPL version 3 but can not distribute, because we can not distribut a SOURCE tarball of 52 GByte (90% are videos in original made generaly by my self) and arroud 14 GByte of binaries/data. So IF we open the Game (it is a strategic/action Game like Fleet Command and about real conflict szenarios), and someone want a copy of the source he/she has to pay a fee for the sourceode on HARD medias like DVD20 or BlueRay and of course to pay the time we need to produce and verify the medias before distributing... So FREE distribution is not posibel in any kind... Please note, that my friends am me want to get a 19/42U Rack @Hetzner in Germany and there, wee have to pay 0.29€ (Euro) per GByte traffic... Offering FREE downloads would leed like a DDoS... (15€ per source dl) What if someone uses that software using a network over WAP, or GSM tecnology? (Mobile internet conections are slower and limited by Mbytes) And then why do you want to offer public access to the server? There is some logic missing... Wait. You're thinking about public source code, not free software. Free software can be modified, used, distributed and selled without making it You suld think about the phrase: Free software can be modified I know MANY software which is FREE but can not be modifiesd because there is no sourcode available. public. Don't think that someone will like your idea about sharing the code in public servers. I place my own code in public servers, I like that. But there are other people that doesn't like that. ... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080915 20:55]: Bernhard R. Link wrote: Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run modified services secretly is a restriction? Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a rectriction? I understand this perfectly well. I do not claim that it is not a restriction, only that it is a totally different type of restriction. And I respect the decision of people thinking this is too much a restriction. I won't tell BSD people that GPL fits the definition of their freedom nor do I claim that noone ever claimed GPL does not. I do not share their goals, but I respect their views and do not claim their views are too stupid to exist. Having to ship the source with the binary means costs, too: You have to keep the sources around with the binaries and you cannot combine it with things where you are not allowed to give out the source and then distribute the result. But for not combining with other code you can claim the fault at other code. For keeping the source around you'll have bigger problems when you want to change anything and cannot do it, so it is not that big of a problem. And putting it on some disc or CD or whatever is always possible and cheap. Having to pay someone in your organisation (or invest your own time) to keep all of them around and findable is a cost, but we respect that. You also do not have to publish anything you run. You only have a more readable version, while the binary already contains all the details, just a little better obfuscated. Restricting running a program on the other hand means you do not give people control over their own computer. You do not allow them the privacy to modify things they run. You do not allow them to make ugly hack tomake it run on their computer. And they either have to ship the source at their cost all the time (and arbitrarily often), unless GPL which also gives the possibility to only ship it on the requestors cost. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there are remaining questions, they should be asked. The following questions remain unanswered and are interesting to me. Whenever these have been posted, the answers have been qualified to be useless in general, or otherwise unsatisfactory. There may be other remaining questions, but others will have to post them. Is there a generally-accepted statement that posting to a free VCS solution is sufficient? And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous (dissident test)? [asked by Miry; I don't think that suggesting fraud is an acceptable answer.] How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code? [asked by Miry; previously dismissed as merely technical but seems like a practical problem for the project.] If the previously-available modified copy that you are using goes offline, does one then have to post the source? How can an application deny remote access to people without interacting with them at all? Is it a loophole in the GPL that I am not compelled to give Sarah my modified Iceweasel's source code if I let her use my laptop's copy? Do some advocate Affero because they find some non-free webapps like Launchpad irresistable, wish they had the source to those and see publishing more software with Affero clauses as a possible way of - eventually - getting the source of those non-free webapps? In short, are they punishing the world because of their weakness? We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather than arguing DFSG-freeness. Sure. I think this is because the data is simply not available yet and some participants have posted personal opinions in order to improve their own AGPL'd software package's position, because the sensible default position - reasonable prudence - would mean that their package is non-free. The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. Many of those users will be doing so because they are unaware of the consequences of the AGPLv3 and the grey areas in whether the software is free software. I'd even bet that many of them are violating the licence by not offering source, just like people misapplied the FDL and the CCv2 until we started contacting them and requesting fixes. The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a combative manner against these projects in labeling them as non-free or accept them as part of the body of free software. No, there are other issues at hand, including why FSF keeps refusing to answer questions about the licence from free software supporters, while simultaneously blessing non-free-software licences and web services and funding astroturf projects, but they're about as off-topic and flamebait here as suggesting putting something in non-free is a combative act. ;-) 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:24:52 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this is not necessarily possible. For instance: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html Alright, let me see the objections in that message... On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: Please do not mis-attribute your quotes: the objections you are quoting are mine, not Daniel Dickinson's... * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host So? Put it up in Sourceforge or another server. What's the big deal about using another server? The indefinite article a in the AGPL clearly allows this. The big deal is caused by the fact that the other options have issues, as outlined below... * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service Sure you can, just use an authentication system. There are many public hosting services that allow you to enforce an authentication system. An authentication system somehow linked to the network application own authentication system, so that when a new account is created for the application, the new user is granted access to source hosted on the public service? Technically possible, but a bit complicated... I don't know how many public hosting services allow such a setup, but forcing me to adopt a complicated mechanism seems to be a significant restriction on my act of running the application. * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me Againt, those costs can be transferred to other agents for whom the cost is presumably negligible. The fact that I can dump the cost to other (generous) people, does not mean that the cost does not exist. There's a source distribution cost associated with the act of running the application, whoever is willing to pay that cost. Moreover, those agents (i.e.: public hosting services) are not going to ensure that the source is available as long as the application runs. I haven't seen any convincing argument that this is not a issue. 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: [...] For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you first transfer the software, could be effective. Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. That's true, but you received the AGPLed software somehow in the first place. Perhaps it's not fair of me to assume that if you were able to receive the software, you cannot use the same symmetrical method to distribute your modified source. But again, I have difficulty envisioning a system where you're able to run a server that everyone in the world can use to interface to but you cannot provide code to anyone who uses this globally-available code. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. You were suggesting that, for difficult cases, one can always provide source when he/she transfers the software. I was simply pointing out that this alternative method (even assuming that it actually is a way to comply with AfferoGPLv3 Section 13!) is not always a viable option. Suppose, for instance, that I downloaded the source for the application, modified it, compiled it and installed on my server; the modified application now runs on my server, where remote users from all continents access to it, but I haven't ever transfer the (compiled) application to any remote user. In this case, the alternative method you suggest is not applicable. [...] And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding some scenarios just because they are weird. Yes you can. Suppose aliens invade the Earth, closely monitor all network traffic as well as sneakernet and instantly destroy anyone who attempts to distribute source, but allow distribution of binaries. Oh no! You cannot comply with the GPL anymore without being vapourised! Clearly the GPL is non-free in this scenario. No, it isn't. In your example, the restriction is external to the license: the GPL cannot be blamed, if some external entity effectively forbids the very concept of Free Software. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/13 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this is not necessarily possible. For instance: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html Alright, let me see the objections in that message... On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host So? Put it up in Sourceforge or another server. What's the big deal about using another server? The indefinite article a in the AGPL clearly allows this. * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service Sure you can, just use an authentication system. There are many public hosting services that allow you to enforce an authentication system. * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me Againt, those costs can be transferred to other agents for whom the cost is presumably negligible. 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various reasons (anonymity and whatnot). The issue is not anonymity: the issue is that I could want to avoid making the application public (and only distribute it to my remote users). Again, see the above-cited message. An authentication system seems to fix this (and I guess your next objection will be some weird hypothetical and unlikely case where an authentication system is technically difficult). [...] and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over time. For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you first transfer the software, could be effective. Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. That's true, but you received the AGPLed software somehow in the first place. Perhaps it's not fair of me to assume that if you were able to receive the software, you cannot use the same symmetrical method to distribute your modified source. But again, I have difficulty envisioning a system where you're able to run a server that everyone in the world can use to interface to but you cannot provide code to anyone who uses this globally-available code. I hope you are not arguing that forcing me to implement http/ftp support complies with the DFSG... No need for you to implement it, Sourceforge et al have already implemented it for your benefit. I have a hard time imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; this seems like a negligible cost too. Suppose I am not giving any physical device to anyone. My (modified) application runs on a small resource-limited server, talks a very simple network protocol (with no http/ftp support) and has remote users on the other side of an ocean... I don't think this is a particularly far-fetched example. I do. Provide more details to make it plausible. And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding some scenarios just because they are weird. Yes you can. Suppose aliens invade the Earth, closely monitor all network traffic as well as sneakernet and instantly destroy anyone who attempts to distribute source, but allow distribution of binaries. Oh no! You cannot comply with the GPL anymore without being vapourised! Clearly the GPL is non-free in this scenario. That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at time T+X requests the corresponding source. I am not sure. It might. The opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source might be an opportunity in the future. To sue, you would probably have to convince a judge that you were never given an opportunity at all. An opportunity in the future? Like click here, and wait for some 10 or 20 years, to get source ? Whatever a judge or local law interpreter deems reasonable. I think most judges would deem a few days, maybe even a week or a month to be reasonable, but
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080915 18:25]: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. Alright, let me see the objections in that message... So, because noone changed your opinion on the matter, your opinion has no been challenged? Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run modified services secretly is a restriction? That having to make sure something can be downloaded from somewhere means costs? (And that enumerating services offering such a service without payment for another mean without any guarantee does not mean it has no costs?) Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Bernhard R. Link wrote: Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run modified services secretly is a restriction? Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a rectriction? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a rectriction? I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there are remaining questions, they should be asked. We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather than arguing DFSG-freeness. The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a combative manner against these projects in labeling them as non-free or accept them as part of the body of free software.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/15 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a rectriction? I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there are remaining questions, they should be asked. We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather than arguing DFSG-freeness. I agree. I think all the points of view have been expressed, and there is no reason to keep repeating all of them over and over again [1] The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a combative manner against these projects in labeling them as non-free or accept them as part of the body of free software. That's not exactly a reason. Many Debian users are using flashplugin-nonfree [2] and that doesn't make it free. non-free does not have to mean bad or good, or that Debian is combative against it. It just describes whether it fulfills or not the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Greetings, Miry [1] http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/21/charles_rules_of_argument/ [2] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=flashplugin-nonfree -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes: And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. This is plainly false: There is, at minimum, additional cost of storage, additional cost of bandwidth, I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this is not necessarily possible. For instance: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various reasons (anonymity and whatnot). The issue is not anonymity: the issue is that I could want to avoid making the application public (and only distribute it to my remote users). Again, see the above-cited message. [...] and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over time. For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you first transfer the software, could be effective. Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. How plausible is it that you have a server somewhere providing the interface but unable to provide the source? Not all servers are http/ftp (or similar) servers. My (modified) application could interact with its remote user through a very simple network protocol, which does not support file transfers at all. I hope you are not arguing that forcing me to implement http/ftp support complies with the DFSG... I have a hard time imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; this seems like a negligible cost too. Suppose I am not giving any physical device to anyone. My (modified) application runs on a small resource-limited server, talks a very simple network protocol (with no http/ftp support) and has remote users on the other side of an ocean... I don't think this is a particularly far-fetched example. And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding some scenarios just because they are weird. That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at time T+X requests the corresponding source. I am not sure. It might. The opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source might be an opportunity in the future. To sue, you would probably have to convince a judge that you were never given an opportunity at all. An opportunity in the future? Like click here, and wait for some 10 or 20 years, to get source ? Needless to say, those stated above are my own opinions and concerns. Usual (or useless) disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- 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 pgpRCE1N4Dejn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network server to indicate those other ways. The license does not require you to provide your own network server to indicate anything. All you need is to include is a pointer to *a* network server hosting the code. That is, if you're hosting a modified version of a game server, you're required to prominently offer players the URL of a location on a network server which hosts a diff of your minor changes, a tarball of files you've replaced, a VCS branch with your changes applied on top of the version you forked from, or a full copy of the version you're running. This can be Savannah, shifting the hosting cost to the FSF/GNU if you feel it's too much. They'll gladly host your modified code for free, as will a number of different groups. In the case of PySoy, we'll gladly host PySoy-based games, branch of our engine, or branch of any dependency. I see this as a convience to us and our users.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. I don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. A network interface typically transfers some kilobytes of interface. The source code of that software is typically some megabytes. The difference between kilo and mega is a significant increase to me. I know internet access is expensive in England, but I suspect the cost difference will be even larger for some other countries. [...] What I mean is that through some standard or customery means seems vague enough to me be interpreted as I did, that all the network server has to do is tell you where to get the source, not that it directly has to provide the source over this network connection, and it's important to mention that all the same terms of the GPL for distributing source also apply to the AGPL except for the extra It is not important to mention them because they are not causing any problems *and* they are useless for satisfying the extra clause. They are useless in deciding whether the AGPL's section 13 follows the DFSG. Previously, I attempted to use them as examples of what customary means in section 13, but was told If section 6 distribution terms were desired for section 13, it would have specified so in section 13. # Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean, are you giving me access to the Corresponding Source if your network server tells me to check the media that came with my bluetooth device that's providing a network interface, and are you giving me the same access if your network server tells me to look at some other 3rd party network to look for the source? If it does, then I think the protests of the AGPL placing undue burdens on the software conveyors are unfounded. If access to the Corresponding Source means nothing less than that the network server must directly send me the source over the network, then I shall relent arguing that the AGPL satisfies the DFSG. I don't believe that look over there is acceptable access to the C.Source, but I could be wrong and would love better data on that. There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL. I'm not sure what you mean. [...] I mean that the flawed intentions of the AGPL's extra section do not necessarily imply that the GPL is flawed. The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation. Huh? It's absurd to ensure cooperation? Isn't this the whole point of copyleft? Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first principle of cooperation is voluntary. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html Forced cooperation is not the point of copyleft. Copyleft merely forbids uncooperative people from adding more restrictions that would stop the willing from cooperating. It does not seek to force all users into cooperation against their will. I think Copyleft is like the Industrial and Provident Societies Act - it's an enabler that stops our enemies doing bad things to us if we want to cooperate. It doesn't force anyone to participate. I think pointing to other people's servers may work, *as long as* your deployment checks they are still serving source and goes offline if it can't find the source. I'm not sure whether that meets DFSG, though. So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide other ways to convey source, like CDs. How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server. 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arc Riley wrote: I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project. I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. I've gotten that impression too. Users' freedom matter. Do not forget tomorrow you can be a user. Does that impression come from prejudice? Several people have explained repeatedly that this is not about the ASP loophole - a loophole which several AGPL advocates suggest still remains open - but about the increased costs of hosting-using AGPL'd software. Don't forget hosting-users. Tomorrow you might be paying for uploads. -- 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. I don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute the modified source on the same network connection as the remote interaction. That those debating against the AGPLv3 on this thread have such a weak case that they must argue that the cost to upload the source is burdomsome, given the existing cost associated with hosting that software for remote interaction and the cost of hardware to host it on, demonstrates to me that this debate is over. Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first principle of cooperation is voluntary. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html Nobody is being forced to use the software, just as nobody is forced to become a member of a cooperative. Participation remains is voluntary. How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server. It doesn't, (s)he was mistaken. Section 13 clearly reads that it must be hosted on a network server. Don't forget hosting-users. Tomorrow you might be paying for uploads. Gladly, and I believe I already made a statement to the effect that we will be paying for uploads for others modified versions. The hosting cost is negligible. What we care about is having the source code available and that all users are made aware of it's availability.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 09:19 -0400, Arc Riley wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. I don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute the modified source on the same network connection as the remote interaction. Suppose the following scenario: Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool, which happens to be agpl. Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both directions costs, and it could be up to 25cents/mb over your quota. Now imagine because the package you got from debian wasnt finished (perhaps a typo leaves a path broken), you have to make a change to the packages source. You just changed it. You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure). Are you suggesting the person now has to upload potentially 10s of MBs (perhaps theres lots of stock themes, you get the idea), and make it available to others. There will be *at least* a one off cost, but thats not what worries me. What worries me is that the people in this situation *dont realise* what they got themselves into (its on my debian cd, so i can use it for personal use however ... right?). Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first principle of cooperation is voluntary. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html Nobody is being forced to use the software, just as nobody is forced to become a member of a cooperative. Participation remains is voluntary. I'm not worried about people who 'opt in' to agpl software, i'm worried about people who *dont realise* what agpl means to them, and wind up in a tricky legal corner. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute the modified source on the same network connection as the remote interaction. Has it? I haven't seen how anything but convey the corresponding source at the same time and from the same server as the interactive interface can guarantee to satisfy AGPLv3 §13. I've seen many *assertions* that copyright holders probably won't insist that the AGPLv3 §13 be followed. I don't see how that argues that the terms make a work free. That those debating against the AGPLv3 on this thread Again, arguing for or against the AGPLv3 is irrelevant here. The question being asked in this discussion is: Is a work DFSG-free if it is licensed under the terms of the AGPLv3, with its terms *as is* and not with some of them handwaved away to assume a generous copyright holder. What we care about is having the source code available and that all users are made aware of it's availability. This is laudable, and indeed a necessary part of the work being free software. Can we please move past this to the remaining questions of whether *all* the terms of the AGPLv3, applied as-is to a work, make that work free or non-free under *all* the guidelines of the DFSG. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\ so, Brain, but do I really need two tongues?” —_Pinky and The | _o__) Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose the following scenario: Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool, which happens to be agpl. Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both directions costs, and it could be up to 25cents/mb over your quota. Now imagine because the package you got from debian wasnt finished (perhaps a typo leaves a path broken), you have to make a change to the packages source. This is a potential case, yes. You just changed it. You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure). No. It is neither standard nor customary to re-release an entire package for a small bugfix. You could just upload a patch to the project's mailing list and refer to the URL of that patch in the list's archive. The cost to upload that patch is small compared to the cost of web browsing. What worries me is that the people in this situation *dont realise* what they got themselves into (its on my debian cd, so i can use it for personal use however ... right?). It's not personal use when you have remote users, it's public use. Private use is software on my own computer that nobody ever interacts with or uses. I'm not worried about people who 'opt in' to agpl software, i'm worried about people who *dont realise* what agpl means to them, and wind up in a tricky legal corner. What's tricky about it? Upload your changes somewhere. That's all. You miss the license, someone emails you about it, you upload. No big deal. The only way anyone is going to see a courtroom over this is if they intentionally fail to comply with the license terms.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/11 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You just changed it. You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure). No. It is neither standard nor customary to re-release an entire package for a small bugfix. You could just upload a patch to the project's mailing list and refer to the URL of that patch in the list's archive. The cost to upload that patch is small compared to the cost of web browsing. That might not be possible, unless Debian guarantees that all the versions of all the packages will always be available (i.e. to guarantee the snapshots service). We have already discussed that and decided that Debian had no obligation of doing that (you only need to do so if you modify and use the program, and Debian would only be potentially modifying and conveying it, not using it). Thus, the user won't have the guarantee that the exact source code of the package they're using will still be available from Debian repositories. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. I don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute the modified source on the same network connection as the remote interaction. It has not. No-one has a statement from the FSF along the lines of the GPL FAQ about this. All we have is that some AGPL advocates don't require it for their software (for which I thank them). Indeed, one clear failure by the FSF to clarify this has been posted http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=id=3584 which scares me, in a similar way to the utter bunfight that is Creative Commons's refusal to clarify their non-commercial term. So how about making it clear? Then this concern is much reduced. That those debating against the AGPLv3 on this thread have such a weak case that they must argue that the cost to upload the source is burdomsome, given the existing cost associated with hosting that software for remote interaction and the cost of hardware to host it on, demonstrates to me that this debate is over. This doesn't surprise me: Affero advocates have been suggesting that this debate is over since forever. Never mind that it seems to be costing hosting-user freedoms to run the software, non-hosting-users are assumed to be more important for inexplicable reasons, so debate is over. I think that those advocating the AGPLv3 are now using some cock-and-bull megabytes-don't-cost-more-than-kilobytes argument is a worrying sign. [...] Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first principle of cooperation is voluntary. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html Nobody is being forced to use the software, just as nobody is forced to become a member of a cooperative. Participation remains is voluntary. Sure, but the linking of running and distribution means we do not have the same freedom to run the software for any purpose as with other free software. 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/11 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide other ways to convey source, like CDs. How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server. A network server, such as the same one providing the interface, can say, check the CD that we gave you, and this sounds to me like providing access through customary means and through a network server to the Corresponding Source. All the other terms for distributing source of the AGPL seem valid for similar reasons, the network server could tell you to look at the source you've already received through one of the other means. I have not been interpreting clause 13 as specifying that the only way to get you source is through a bitstream coming from the network server, but if you think this interpretation is incorrect, then I will agree that the AGPL does place undue burdens. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the two licenses are nearly identical, then surely the difference in the effect of the license terms is important enough that the FSF promotes the AGPL on the basis of that difference. To do otherwise is to argue against the very license proliferation to which we are (hopefully) united in our opposition. Hmm, grammar error. That should be: “To do otherwise is to promote the very license proliferation to which we are (hopefully) united in our opposition”. -- \“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in | `\ choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” —John | _o__)Kenneth Galbraith, 1962-03-02 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/8 Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080907 19:57]: Hmmm, let???s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed variant of OpenOffice, improves it heavily and incompatibly, and it becomes the new de-facto standard for office document exchange ??? but they don???t distribute it, but put it on terminal servers, maybe with expensive access ... ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I'll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. It might be good to have the source then, but the way to get it would definitly not be in the spirit of Free software. What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing source that the GPL already provides. [1] There is a German proverb Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint, which translates roughly to the opposite of doing good is done with good intentions. That sounds like the road to hell is paved with good intentions, a popular English language proverb that has appeared in various other forms in the past. It seems to have a nicer rhythm in German, though. Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses are nearly identical, after all. I think providing access to the source from a network server could well be satisfied by having that server tell you, check this other place, the source is right there or check your distribution, we already gave you the source. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, let’s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed variant of OpenOffice [...] put it on terminal servers, maybe with expensive access ... ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I’ll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. Like the GPL, the AGPL does not require one to *distribute* to all users, only your users, so unless you pay their expensive access fees, you don't get the improved version. Therefore, not by word-by-word interpretation, but by respecting the spirit of the DFSG in the light of new developments, I consider AGPL licensed works as acceptable for Debian. (This is, in a sense, a political statement.) Where is required distribution in the spirit of the DFSG? I don't see it. Freedom to distribute yes, but not requirement. 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software. Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing source that the GPL already provides. The extra AGPL clause specifies exactly one set of terms for distributing source: access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. Lawyers will have to decide? Then please call us back once lawyers have defused this lawyerbomb. Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses are nearly identical, after all. I think providing access to the source from a network server could well be satisfied by having that server tell you, check this other place, the source is right there or check your distribution, we already gave you the source. There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL. The AGPL's extra clause is different and vague enough to raise questions which do not affect the GPL - except that GPLv3 allows conversion to the AGPL. The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation. I think pointing to other people's servers may work, *as long as* your deployment checks they are still serving source and goes offline if it can't find the source. I'm not sure whether that meets DFSG, though. Hope that explains, -- 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses are nearly identical, after all. A single sentence, even a single word, can change everything in a license, even though most of the text can still be the same. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software. Here again we must be careful with the myriad applications of the word “use”. Remember that the AGPL is specifically designed to distinguish two types of “use”: running the software, and interacting with it. I take your above statement to mean “[The requirement to distribute corresponding source upon request to any person who interacts with the software is] an extra required cost on top of one's running of the software.” The term “use the software”, which could reasonably be applied to both parties in that statement, is best avoided as obfuscating the point. Forgive this pedantry; it is precisely these terminological confusions that can lead us to speak at cross purposes in these discussions. -- \ “I just got out of the hospital; I was in a speed-reading | `\ accident. I hit a bookmark and flew across the room.” —Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- 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] writes: Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses are nearly identical, after all. If the two licenses are nearly identical, then surely the difference in the effect of the license terms is important enough that the FSF promotes the AGPL on the basis of that difference. To do otherwise is to argue against the very license proliferation to which we are (hopefully) united in our opposition. So, whatever the difference in effect is, it's clearly significant enough to examine the new license on the merit of its significantly different effect. -- \ “Holy human pressure cookers, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software. One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing source that the GPL already provides. The extra AGPL clause specifies exactly one set of terms for distributing source: access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. Lawyers will have to decide? Then please call us back once lawyers have defused this lawyerbomb. What I mean is that through some standard or customery means seems vague enough to me be interpreted as I did, that all the network server has to do is tell you where to get the source, not that it directly has to provide the source over this network connection, and it's important to mention that all the same terms of the GPL for distributing source also apply to the AGPL except for the extra I mean, are you giving me access to the Corresponding Source if your network server tells me to check the media that came with my bluetooth device that's providing a network interface, and are you giving me the same access if your network server tells me to look at some other 3rd party network to look for the source? If it does, then I think the protests of the AGPL placing undue burdens on the software conveyors are unfounded. If access to the Corresponding Source means nothing less than that the network server must directly send me the source over the network, then I shall relent arguing that the AGPL satisfies the DFSG. There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL. I'm not sure what you mean. Both licences are identical except for clause 13, and even that clause explicitly says that you can combine GPL and AGPL works. They're clearly meant to be compatible and used side-by-side. The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation. Huh? It's absurd to ensure cooperation? Isn't this the whole point of copyleft? I think pointing to other people's servers may work, *as long as* your deployment checks they are still serving source and goes offline if it can't find the source. I'm not sure whether that meets DFSG, though. So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide other ways to convey source, like CDs. - Jordi G. H. -- 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] writes: 2008/9/10 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the source? It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software. One's modification and distribution over a network of that software, let's be explicit. As I pointed out in another post, the unfortunate use of the word use here leads to confusion. I think MJ Ray's point (and, if not his, then a point made by others) is that distribution of the software over a network is exactly the additional cost being discussed. That cost is required, by the AGPL, over and above the cost of making the program available for interaction by others. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. This is plainly false: There is, at minimum, additional cost of storage, additional cost of bandwidth, additional cost of modifying the interface to support such an offering, and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over time. That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at time T+X requests the corresponding source. -- \“I fly Air Bizarre. You buy a combination one-way round-trip | `\ticket. Leave any Monday, and they bring you back the previous | _o__) Friday. That way you still have the weekend.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. This is plainly false: There is, at minimum, additional cost of storage, additional cost of bandwidth, I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code hosting sites. The protests I have heard on this point is that perhaps transferring these costs to third parties is not effective for various reasons (anonymity and whatnot). additional cost of modifying the interface to support such an offering, I suppose it may be a bit naïve of me to think that this cost could also be negligible. Maybe Click here for source! is hard to code for certain circumstances. and additional cost of maintaining those modifications over time. For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you first transfer the software, could be effective. How plausible is it that you have a server somewhere providing the interface but unable to provide the source? I have a hard time imagining such a situation, so I don't think I fully understand the impact of this protest against the AGPL. The cases of when the user is given a device that has a local network interface can be solved by giving the user the source on a separate medium when given the device; this seems like a negligible cost too. That's before we even get to the question of whether the AGPL allows the corresponding source to be unavailable at a given point in time when an person who interacts with the program at time T and then at time T+X requests the corresponding source. I am not sure. It might. The opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source might be an opportunity in the future. To sue, you would probably have to convince a judge that you were never given an opportunity at all. - Jordi G. H. -- 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] writes: 2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the first place. […] I have been interpreting the AGPL […] that these additional costs can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible That's a different argument to your earlier message. You can't argue both zero additional costs *and* non-zero additional costs which are negligible for some parties in some circumstances. Which is it? -- \“What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?” —anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of
providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in
the first place.
[…]
I have been interpreting the AGPL […] that these additional costs
can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably
negligible
That's a different argument to your earlier message.
You can't argue both zero additional costs *and* non-zero
additional costs which are negligible for some parties in some
circumstances. Which is it?
I suppose debian-legal is the proper place to pick language apart.
The two you quote above, one says no greater, the other says
negligible. My point still is that in most cases if you can afford
to provide an interface over a network, you can also afford to provide
source over a network, and for the cases when you can't afford source,
there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
server to indicate those other ways.
In LaTeX,
\[
\operatorname{cost} \leq \epsilon \forall \operatorname{cost} \in A
\]
where $A$ is the set of all costs associated with transferring AGPLed source.
I have never argued for zero cost. Smaller than epsilon doesn't mean
zero (unless it's nonnegative and smaller than every epsilon and we're
working with a standard model of the real numbers, but I digress).
And I'm trying to be funny, btw, not necessarily a smart (or dumb)
ass. :-) Please forgive me if I failed. Being funny, that is.
- Jordi G. H.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080907 19:57]: Hmmm, let???s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed variant of OpenOffice, improves it heavily and incompatibly, and it becomes the new de-facto standard for office document exchange ??? but they don???t distribute it, but put it on terminal servers, maybe with expensive access ... ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I'll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. It might be good to have the source then, but the way to get it would definitly not be in the spirit of Free software. This is not the first example of something intended good[1] went in the wrong direction. Take for example the povray license, it is in non-free and rightly so. It does all kind of ugly things (which are too numerous to enumerate), but everything under the rationale to prevent that people are tricked to not know that they can get the source and that it is a free project[2]. And I think if we go through the archives we will find a large number of other examples that tried to protect user's freedom but take away too much for it. We did reject to give them our dfsg-free tag in the past, and I see no reason to label non-free things free in the future. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link [1] There is a German proverb Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint, which translates roughly to the opposite of doing good is done with good intentions. [2] And now that free software is very widespread and such fears are clearly unfounded, its too late to change the license, even if all people active now could agree... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 03.09.2008, 20:13 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: 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! Hmmm, let’s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed variant of OpenOffice, improves it heavily and incompatibly, and it becomes the new de-facto standard for office document exchange – but they don’t distribute it, but put it on terminal servers, maybe with expensive access ... ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I’ll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. Therefore, not by word-by-word interpretation, but by respecting the spirit of the DFSG in the light of new developments, I consider AGPL licensed works as acceptable for Debian. (This is, in a sense, a political statement.) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project. I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I'll be thankful that due to the AGPL I, as a user, can get the source from it. Therefore, not by word-by-word interpretation, but by respecting the spirit of the DFSG in the light of new developments, I consider AGPL licensed works as acceptable for Debian. (This is, in a sense, a political statement.)
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley wrote: I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project. I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. I've gotten that impression too. Users' freedom matter. Do not forget tomorrow you can be a user. -- www.gnuherds.org - The democratic FS jobs site. - Say no to the FS task. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. You're seeing a different discussion from what I'm seeing, then. The important issue, for the purposes of this discussion taking place on the 'debian-legal' forum, is determining whether a work licensed under the AGPL is free by the terms of the DFSG. Arguments for or against are matters of preference, potentially interesting, but *irrelevant* to the question of whether such a work is DFSG-free. -- \ “The greater the artist, the greater the doubt; perfect | `\ confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation | _o__) prize.” —Robert Hughes | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole. I don't believe anyone here has argued that people exploiting the ASP loophole is a good thing, so that impression is likely due to preconceived goals held for the outcome of this discussion. This discussion is about the way in which the AGPL closes the ASP loophole and whether that way is or is not in conflict with the DFSG. Secondarily, whether it is possible for Debian and/or Debian's user's to satisfy the terms of the AGPL as a practical matter. Discussions as to whether the AGPL is a good thing, or whether the DFSG should be modified (assuming it needs to be) are tertiary to determining whether it complies with the DFSG or not, and whether Debian can actually satisfy the AGPL. We may have to go there eventually, but without resolving the first questions, going there is premature. Please, help us all by working to address the first to questions in the framework of the DFSG. Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of math instruction. 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?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? That means Debian still had to distribute sources for sarge until this past June. Or is it that with the AGPL, it's not just three years, but for however long you keep conveying the software over a network? This is the same for the GPL, as long as you keep conveying GPLed software, those three years get renewed. It doesn't sound like it's Debian's duty to keep conveying the source over a network for longer than those three years unless there's AGPL software running in the Debian webservers. And if you keep a server up with your modified AGPLed software, I insist that it's not an unreasonable burden to also keep the corresponding source available somewehere online. You want to stop conveying the source, then stop conveying the software over the network, tada! Or if you don't want to convey source at all, then don't modify the software that you yoinked from the original copyright holder.. - 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, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. 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. This is part and parcel of the ASP loophole that the AGPL is trying to close, and the very reason that the AGPL exists in the first place. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? No, the path through the GPL that we use says equivalent access. (We distribute binaries under 6d precisely so our mirror operators do not have to deal with the tedious bookkeeping of satifying 6c.) [I really recommend reading the GPL and AGPL strongly; it's a necessary pre-requisite for any discussion of them.] Don Armstrong 1: There are probably some exceptions out there; ISTR archive.d.o only having source in some cases. -- The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila -- Mitch Ratcliffe 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?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing source for all other packages. 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. At any time Debian provides a webserver with modified AGPLed software for its users. It's not that Debian's users are going to download the AGPLed software which most of them are not going to modify, and Debian is responsible for always keeping a copy of the source available for all the users. If the user modifies the software *and* conveys it over a network, it is that user's responsibility to keep distributing the modified sources, not Debian's. This is part and parcel of the ASP loophole that the AGPL is trying to close, and the very reason that the AGPL exists in the first place. Are you saying the burden is going to be in updating those links that say where to get the source, making the patchwork for packaging AGPL software more tedious? The GPL says three years, right? No, the path through the GPL that we use says equivalent access. (We distribute binaries under 6d precisely so our mirror operators do not have to deal with the tedious bookkeeping of satifying 6c.) Okay, I understand. Sorry about this one. - 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, 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. If Debian no longer distributes the binaries and source for that version, the requirements of that 3rd party are unchanged. Debian is hardly an agent making modifications on the behalf of the 3rd party. If the 3rd party modifies the source, they're required to host their modified version regardless. In this way, unless Debian is hosting modified applications for remote users to interact with, the AGPLv3 is identical to the GPLv3 in the manner and requirements for Debian. 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, yes it's a problem you need to solve, but it's not like the lawyers come out. Someone tries to download it, finds the link broken, sends you an email, you fix it, no big deal. If some copyright holder was insane enough to start with involving lawyers the situation could surely be solved long before the issue ended up in court.
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]
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?
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?
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 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 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 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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
Francesco Poli wrote: In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing software. But you are distributing some sort of data - otherwise the person using the software would not be interacting with it. Interaction requires exchange of data. I modified the application and simply want to run it on my server. If it were just running on your server, there would be no distribution requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving data from the user, which is different. In order to do so, I am compelled to offer to distribute source code to users. Let's see what I can do: * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. Or is this a combination of the small embedded system objection and the gigabytes of modified source objection? * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service I refuse to believe that finding somewhere to host a password-protected 10MB tarball is so difficult that it falls into the category of unreasonable requirement. * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me And if you can't afford the costs of the bandwidth for the small embedded system, you can't run the service at all! Free as in freedom does not necessarily mean free as in cost to you. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Christofer C. Bell wrote: As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server software using it and (make that software available for interaction over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law. Making cryptographic software available for export from the US is not, in an of itself, a violation of the law. Look at all the open source projects which do it (e.g. the Mozilla project). Open source products can be exported from the US under license exception TSU (Technology and Software - Unrestricted) according to Section 740.13(e) of the Export Administration Regulations. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/15cfr740.13.pdf (page 2). There may be a one-off notification requirement, I don't recall. But if there were, that would not fall into the unreasonable burden category, which is the point in question. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it were just running on your server, there would be no distribution requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving data from the user, which is different. This is the core of the issue. If you are a local user of the software, the AGPLv3 is identical to the GPLv3. It's only when you're running the software on your machine for other people to use (whether that be an IRC bot, a webapp, or a game server) does the AGPLv3 specific clauses take effect. In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software are granted the four software freedoms. We do not view this as a use restriction, as the user of the software has no restrictions added to her remote usage nor local usage should they download it, but rather ensuring that she has the same abilities and rights we have with locally-run free software. If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. An excellent point. And if you can't afford the costs of the bandwidth for the small embedded system, you can't run the service at all! Free as in freedom does not necessarily mean free as in cost to you. .. and even if hosting the source code over your own Internet connection, it should also be noted that in almost any case remote users downloading the modified source should represent an extremely small part of your bandwidth.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. Uh, no. If the license contradicts the law, then *you don't have a valid license*. Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. Arnoud -- IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Partner at ICTRecht.nl legal services http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. What about point 12? 12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom. If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080902 11:23]: In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software are granted the four software freedoms. It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by the software. We do not view this as a use restriction, as the user of the software has no restrictions added to her remote usage nor local usage should they download it, but rather ensuring that she has the same abilities and rights we have with locally-run free software. So where to draw the line for use restrictions? If you really want the same abilities and rights, why don't you demand that users can change the software running? (As making it run on another computer that is not half a building and has tons of database might not be possible at all?) If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. But usually the memory on embedded systems is even smaller, so this is a very noticeable restriction. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Bernhard R. Link wrote: It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by the software. But in today's world, that's no longer a meaningful distinction. It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I interacted with the services provided by that software using the attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services provided by software that runs on a computer somewhere else, using the same monitor and keyboard. Why do I require less freedom in this case? In fact, there's not even a bright line between here and somewhere else. If I'm interacting with a web application, a significant proportion of that code _is_ running on my local machine, inside my JavaScript VM or browser. This argument even applies to non-networked applications. If I'm running OpenOffice.org on my machine, I should have software freedom with respect to that software. Why does that change if I'm instead accessing it via a remote X session? You may argue that there's a legal difference between the two in terms of copyright law, performance etc. That may or may not be so. But I assert that there's no difference in the amount of freedom that a user of free software should require. So where to draw the line for use restrictions? If you really want the same abilities and rights, why don't you demand that users can change the software running? Things like Firefox extensions and Greasemonkey actually make this fairly trivial for web apps. And other tools could be developed for other apps. If the licensing of software banned e.g. the use of Greasemonkey scripts on it, then it would definitely be non-free. If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. But usually the memory on embedded systems is even smaller, so this is a very noticeable restriction. There are lots of restrictions imposed upon you when you create an embedded product. If you license proprietary software, you may have to pay money to its owners. If you use free software, you may have to put an extra $1 or $.50c flash chip in to hold a copy of the source. Free software doesn't mean zero cost in meeting the licensing obligations. The question is, is the burden unreasonable? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/2 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I interacted with the services provided by that software using the attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services provided by software that runs on a computer somewhere else, using the same monitor and keyboard. Why do I require less freedom in this case? I don't think that is really important in this case. It's up for upstreams to decide under which license they want to publish their code, and I'm sure everyone will have their reasons for the license they're using. I might agree with them or not, but it's their freedom of choose and I respect that. What I'm trying to find out is if AGPLv3 is compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There's no point in starting a flame about which license is better, or about whether copyleft is good or bad or if it should be extended to others. The point, for me at least, is just to be aware of the consequences that having a program with that license will have both for Debian and its users, and whether we should put that stuff in main or not. 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: 2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. What about point 12? 12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom. If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in the sense of article 12. Arnoud -- IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Partner at ICTRecht.nl legal services http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What about point 12? What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in the sense of article 12. OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a court to decide that before ignoring ourselves that clause on our own? I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here, but you mean that if someone is exchanging data with your program through a computer network, and it might be illegal to distribute the code to that person, you could safely ignore it, not send them the source code as clause 13 says, and you'll still have a license to use the program, taking into account only the other terms? Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two points: 1) Is this software DFSG-free? 2) Does putting it into Debian have unfortunate practical consequences? In pursuit of an answer to question 1, I was making the point that there is no longer a meaningful distinction or bright line between software running on your machine and software running elsewhere. Therefore, points based on such a distinction are not valid. 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is 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? taking the idea that there is no longer a meaningful distinction between my webserver and my laptop if it has other casual users. And I think the answer is No, it breaks DFSG 1 but people are defending the AGPLv3 by saying that the cost is negligible, which I'm unsure about. I'm also not sure whether the scale of the cost matters much - one person's negligible is another's cost of living. Basically, AGPLv3 seems to reduce the user's freedom to use, but not distribute which isn't explicitly forbidden by the DFSG, but surely outside the normal Free Software Definition. At least one of the examples seemed to me like some of the remote users who could request source weren't really users of the AGPL'd app, but users of other network application clients that connected to it, which leaves users open to the whole damn network downloading source. That's another tricky line to draw and the AGPL seems to try to draw it in a different place to where I'd expect it. I'm pretty hesitant to decide a FSF program licence is non-free, but I also hesitate to decide that such a restrictive licence is free, given that FSF have failed to discuss the big questions over Affero's approach. 2. Regardless of where it ends up, I think there are clearly practical problems with AGPLv3 for the debian project. (There are other aspects of this thread I'm thinking about still, but I wanted to try to explain this aspect in this context.) -- 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
MJ Ray wrote: 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is 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? 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. And I think the answer is No, it breaks DFSG 1 but people are defending the AGPLv3 by saying that the cost is negligible, which I'm unsure about. I'm also not sure whether the scale of the cost matters much - one person's negligible is another's cost of living. Basically, AGPLv3 seems to reduce the user's freedom to use, but not distribute That's a good way of putting it IMO. which isn't explicitly forbidden by the DFSG, but surely outside the normal Free Software Definition. Why surely? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is 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? 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. [...] Basically, AGPLv3 seems to reduce the user's freedom to use, but not distribute That's a good way of putting it IMO. which isn't explicitly forbidden by the DFSG, but surely outside the normal Free Software Definition. Why surely? 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 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? It also notes the importance of the choice to publish the program, which AGPLv3 also limits. For an organisation that has been pretty uncompromising about program freedom, it seems an odd step, but I found FSF a bit opaque on *GPLv3. 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080902 11:23]: In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software are granted the four software freedoms. It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by the software. This is a trivial distinction. Take for example a typical use example of our engine; the actual game code (in Python) runs on a server, likely at an affordable high-bandwidth co-hosting facility such as ServerBeach. The users, people playing that game, using a Firefox plugin and a version of our engine that runs just the rendering and physics threads. That game is identical for them as if they had downloaded the Python source and were running it locally without the hassle of having to install anything first. In most cases this is for previewing new games on the web. They are remote users interacting with the software. Under the GPL 2 or 3 their software freedoms may not be afforded because, while their use and interaction with that software is nearly identical to running it locally, they need not be sent the game code itself. We foresaw many groups using our engine under the GPLv3 to host proprietary games in this manner. Under the AGPLv3, however, users must be given the opportunity to download the game and thus run it on their own hardware, modify it, etc. Under the AGPLv3 we're developing these new features knowing that our user's freedoms will be protected regardless of what physical machine they use the software from. Of course it has other positive effects as well, such as mitigating secret server code business models (ie, shifting a good deal of the game logic to undistributed server software). We want to promote ethical business models for copyleft games, we view part of that is deterring unethical practices with our software.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee. That leaves the rest of the license intact. A court could do anything it wants. It could declare the sky mauve, require you to stand on your head with a sign that says This way to Babylon, or any number of insanities. However, when there is clearly a conservative, risk-averse position that can be taken, that's what we should take if possible. In this case, assuming that the license will remain intact is the conservative position. Don Armstrong -- G: If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do? EB: Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area. -- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4 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?
Miriam Ruiz wrote: 2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in the sense of article 12. OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a court to decide that before ignoring ourselves that clause on our own? I'm not sure Well, that's the problem of course. Only a court can rule that a clause is illegal and therefore can be ignored. if I'm understanding you correctly here, but you mean that if someone is exchanging data with your program through a computer network, and it might be illegal to distribute the code to that person, you could safely ignore it, not send them the source code as clause 13 says, and you'll still have a license to use the program, taking into account only the other terms? In such a case, you could refuse to distribute the source. The person would then inform the copyright holder, who would take you to court for license violation. As a defense you would argue that the clause is against the law and therefore must be declared null and void, or at least inapplicable to you. If the court agrees with you, the result is that you did not violate the license. Arnoud -- IT lawyer, blogger and patent attorney ~ Partner at ICTRecht.nl legal services http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
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? Pleae correct me if I'm strawmanning you, but this is ridiculous. It's an even bigger burden to have to send people copies of CDs or to download the source from all the GPLed software out there, and I don't think all this distribution of source has brought any project to its knees. 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. You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. 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 don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; if the dissident can setup a network server to offer a network interface to her users, she can also anonymously upload the source to Sourceforge (or whatever). - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Gervase Markham wrote: If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be small. Or is this a combination of the small embedded system objection and the gigabytes of modified source objection? This problem could actually arise for the GPL too. Consider a work which contains a video file encoded in some kind of lossy format like divx. The source code for that video file could easily be a hundred times the size of the file. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, which is something that is easily solvable using the same distribution mechanism at distribution time. In this way, we don't have to even give source to those who ask.[1] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Resolving this issue as a practical matter for all of our users all of the time is non-trivial until such a time as we have a working snapshot.d.o. [I'd be interesting in seeing someone who has an AGPLv3 work in use which actually satifies the terms of the AGPLv3 (and properly tracks upgrades of packages) without reliance on system library exemptions to avoid actually distributing the Corresponding Source.] Don Armstrong 1: Though obviously we should as good members of the FOSS community. -- Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. -- Terry Pratchet _The Color of Magic_ 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?
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only to those who ask. The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the network? The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. It doesn't have to be available from the same location as the program, same server, same nothing. You just have to prominently offer an opportunity, and a network server, emphasis on the indefinite article. It's the equivalent of a splash screen in a GPL program that says where the program's homepage is for downloading the source. GPLed programs already have a requirement to prominently make certain announcements too, such as announcing that it's free software under the GPL. - 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, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do to the binaries, And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the network? No, it requires distribution of source at use time, not distribution time. [People use a version of a program and its dependencies over a much longer time than Debian traditionally distributes it.] The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use, which is more difficult. Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here. And the link has to go to somewhere where the source actually exists. Try doing that currently for a package and all of the package's recursive dependencies which was in testing 3 months ago, but has since been superseded. Don Armstrong -- I have no use for before and after pictures. I can't remember starting, and I'm never done. -- a softer world #221 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=221 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?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:00:58 +0200 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:53:09 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Is there a generally-accepted statement from FSF that a free VCS solution is sufficient, or is this interpretation only valid for PySol? It is obvious that providing access to the Corresponding Source from a VCS at no charge would be OK if it is exactly the same software running at production. The problem is: what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon (or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)? Am I failing to comply with the AfferoGPLv3, unless I immediately shut the network application down (until the VCS is back on-line) or I immediately provide an alternative means to get the Corresponding Source? Again, the GPL has the same 'problem'. If you can't give someone the source, you're in in violation. Normally that doesn't matter so much because there are no guarantees on time - it doesn't say 'in five minutes'. The test in court would be whether you produced the source in a 'reasonable' amount of time. AGPLv3 may or may not be free, but as the discussion goes on I am finding the arguments against it less credible as they seem to be invoking 'problems' that are not really problems. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org The C Shore: http://www.wightman.ca/~cshore signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:56:56 +0200 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:15:48 -0400 Arc Riley wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The problem is: what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon (or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)? Am I failing to comply with the AfferoGPLv3, unless I immediately shut the network application down (until the VCS is back on-line) or I immediately provide an alternative means to get the Corresponding Source? No such clause exists in the license. If you feel otherwise, please paste where the license reads anything similar to that. Section 13 of the AfferoGPLv3 states, in part: | Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, 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 of your version by providing access to the | Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some | standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. It says that I must offer an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of [my] version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. There's no indication that I can delay this opportunity at will, as in yes, to get source click here, but maybe you have to come back tomorrow. Erm, where is the 'And it must be immediate' clause? It merely says you must provide access ; it doesn't even say 24x7 or within a day. You're making up more onerous requirements than any sane judge would require. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org The C Shore: http://www.wightman.ca/~cshore signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:50:51 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the previously-available modified copy that you are using goes offline, does one then have to post the source? The same as with the GPL. If upstream disappears you have to stop distributing unless you provide the source yourself (this is true even of v2 - if you don't keep a copy of the source and you're distributing software to friends, and your upstream goes, you are technically in violation). It's not a new requirement. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org The C Shore: http://www.wightman.ca/~cshore signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/1 Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: AGPLv3 may or may not be free, but as the discussion goes on I am finding the arguments against it less credible as they seem to be invoking 'problems' that are not really problems. Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my personal concerns. Say I want to create a 3D virtual world based on the IRC network, using PySoy as the base framework for that, PySoy being AGPLv3 will force me to: 1) Either not being able to modify the source code or 2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how to get the full source code. 3) Be able to notify servers in the network on how to be able to get that source code too. 4) Be able to provide the source code through one of this means: 4a) Through my own connection. There can be technical problems for this, for example in a low-width connection. It can also be a security issue, as a source-demand-DoS can be triggered. It might also be annoying for people if they are using that bandwidth for someting else. 4b) Through a server of my own, with the economical cost associated. 4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I wouldn't be able to remain anonymous) 5) Have legal problems in countries in which my program might not be legal, by providing having to provide it to people there, as I might be interacting with people in that country. Example: My 3D irc has support for encrypted connections, I might be chatting with people from other countries in which encryption might be forbidden. License is forcing me to commit a crime in that country. I know that some other's point of view about this don't see my concerns, as they have already expressed they thoughts. I understand that a DFSG-free program must provide a de-facto compliance with DFSG, and not just a theoretical one. Thus, if for technical reasons some of them are not fulfilled, and that situation is not really exceptional or terribly rare, I'm not sure I would consider it DFSG-free. That includes not being able to use the code in certain applications, like embedded systems or throught low-band connections, as well as excluding groups of people for economical reasons. Of course this shouldn't be affected by the fact that the code is modified by the user or not. That's how I'm currently seeing it after all this discussion. The license might be OK for other kind of programs, like WebApps, for example. Can a license be free when it has consequences that might make it non-free for some programs while some others don't? Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my personal concerns. Say I want to create a 3D virtual world based on the IRC network, using PySoy as the base framework for that, PySoy being AGPLv3 will force me to: 1) Either not being able to modify the source code or 2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how to get the full source code. The license does not say you must advertise, only that you must prominently offer. In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL with CTCP VERSION requests more than sufficiently fufills this requirement. 3) Be able to notify servers in the network on how to be able to get that source code too. It's common on IRC for servers to grab CTCP VERSION requests as well. Most network protocols have a mechanism similar to this, including XMPP. Since, to activate the AGPLv3 section 13, the remote user must already be interacting with your software, a query/response pair is more than reasonable. 4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I wouldn't be able to remain anonymous) Current free VCS solutions do not require you to identify yourself with your legal identity, many people publish code under an alias/monkier, and the license requires nothing to the contrary. Of course I've said this already. 5) Have legal problems in countries in which my program might not be legal, by providing having to provide it to people there, as I might be interacting with people in that country. Example: My 3D irc has support for encrypted connections, I might be chatting with people from other countries in which encryption might be forbidden. License is forcing me to commit a crime in that country. This is no different from with the GPL. You just can't work on the cryptographic parts of the code, and are thus not in a requirement to distribute those parts. Note that the Corresponding Source is every dependency your software uses, the GPL doesn't require you to distribute every dependency, only the parts you've modified. The AGPLv3 is no different. Replying to you seems to be moot, however, since it doesn't appear that you're reading replies, only continuing to repeat your beliefs untainted by dialog/debate. We've been over all of this in this thread.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/1 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how to get the full source code. The license does not say you must advertise, only that you must prominently offer. In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL with CTCP VERSION requests more than sufficiently fufills this requirement. 3) Be able to notify servers in the network on how to be able to get that source code too. It's common on IRC for servers to grab CTCP VERSION requests as well. Most network protocols have a mechanism similar to this, including XMPP. Since, to activate the AGPLv3 section 13, the remote user must already be interacting with your software, a query/response pair is more than reasonable. Fair enough. I wonder if a similar solution can be found for all the possible cases of use, but you're right in this, 4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I wouldn't be able to remain anonymous) Current free VCS solutions do not require you to identify yourself with your legal identity, many people publish code under an alias/monkier, and the license requires nothing to the contrary. Of course I've said this already. Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country) personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for example. 5) Have legal problems in countries in which my program might not be legal, by providing having to provide it to people there, as I might be interacting with people in that country. Example: My 3D irc has support for encrypted connections, I might be chatting with people from other countries in which encryption might be forbidden. License is forcing me to commit a crime in that country. This is no different from with the GPL. You just can't work on the cryptographic parts of the code, and are thus not in a requirement to distribute those parts. Note that the Corresponding Source is every dependency your software uses, the GPL doesn't require you to distribute every dependency, only the parts you've modified. The AGPLv3 is no different. Maybe I haven't explained myself properly. In my country, cryptographic code is legal. Lets say for example that in France it isn't. I can choose not to distribute my code in France, but I cannot make my program not interact with French people until I have already interacted with them. I see quite an important difference here. Replying to you seems to be moot, however, since it doesn't appear that you're reading replies, only continuing to repeat your beliefs untainted by dialog/debate. We've been over all of this in this thread. I am reading replies, and I acknowledge that your opinion is different than mine. I understand that you believe that your answers are valid to solve these problems, while I don't believe they are. In what I am concerned, some of my problems with it are not solved yet. I have read and understood your replies, and I'm really grateful for those. I guess you are not meaning that me not agreeing with you is because I'm ignoring you or anything, because it's not like that. We probably have different points of view, and it doesn't seem likely that after this discussion any of them are gonna change. That doesn't make me a bad person. I respect your point of view, honest. In any case, it's not me who have to decide, but the ftpmasters, I am just giving my opinion here and talking just for myself. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country) personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for example. Tor. GNUnet. This is a problem answerable by technical means. Maybe I haven't explained myself properly. In my country, cryptographic code is legal. Lets say for example that in France it isn't. I can choose not to distribute my code in France, but I cannot make my program not interact with French people until I have already interacted with them. I see quite an important difference here. As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. Of course you can choose not to interact with them based on IP address. This is done all the time.
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. And you're required to offer that modified software to people in countries where cryptographic software is illegal solely because you have modified your server software that is using cryptographic code and allowing them to interact with it (even if said code is not invoked). You are importing and using crypto in the US which is perfectly fine. The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. The GPL (all versions) does not place this requirement on you. You are free to import server software using crypto, modify it, and make that software available for interaction over a network without being required to re-export the software and thus the crypto it contains. As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server software using it and (make that software available for interaction over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law. I believe this is the point that Miriam Ruiz is making. Wether this is a problem or not is not something I am commenting on, however, I will add that I feel expecting Joe Developer to maintain an IP blacklist in order to avoid violating the law in their home countries (a solution you have suggested) *is* an onerous requirement. In order to make the source available to all users (in the absence of locking the entire non-US world out of your server), the law will have to be violated at least once (export/upload of the modified cryptographic containing source to a repository outside US territory). -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. Uh, no. If the license contradicts the law, then *you don't have a valid license*. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These are technical challenges, not legal problems, and will be solved by the community as the need arises. I'd say in the next year or two free VCS services will allow people to register new branches to existing projects. There is already a limited form of this available at repo.or.cz, via the mob branch: http://repo.or.cz/mob.html -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote: As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I don't work on it. That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes those components, as those components are imported. You still have to arrange to convey the Corresponding Source, which includes these components, which means that you may be exporting or facilitating the exportation of cryptographic software. Don Armstrong -- He no longer wished to be dead. At the same time, it cannot be said that he was glad to be alive. But at least he did not resent it. He was alive, and the stubbornness of this fact had little by little begun to fascinate him -- as if he had managed to outlive himself, as if he were somehow living a posthumous life. -- Paul Auster _City of Glass_ 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?
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. It's an issue, because it means that in such cases you have no choice but to not use or distribute the work. I'm undecided as to whether it's a DFSG freeness issue, but it's certainly something to be aware of as a practical matter when it comes to distribution within Debian. Don Armstrong -- I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -- Douglas Adams _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_ 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?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free? Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, It's probably not onerous, but it's certainly non-trivial. The class of things that fall under Corresponding Source is not vanishingly small, and for Debian to arrange for our users to easily and trivially satisfy this requirement is going to be difficult, especially for versions which are not part of a stable release.[1] and there is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is very important to stop someone making the code effectively proprietary. Right. I personally believe blocking this case of exploitation of Free Software is desirable; my only reservation is with the execution. [The Afferro GPL v3 is quite a bit better than the earlier versions in this regards, but there are still issues, some of which we may end up deciding we need to live with in order to obtain that class of protection.] Don Armstrong 1: It basically mandates the usage of snapshot.debian.net to provide links to the corresponding source of the version which is actually being used. I've no doubt that this the right thing to do always, but it's not something that we guarantee now. -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers 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?
2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal for you. This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that contradicts a higher law. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:00:58 +0200 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The problem is: what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon (or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)? Am I failing to comply with the AfferoGPLv3, unless I immediately shut the network application down (until the VCS is back on-line) or I immediately provide an alternative means to get the Corresponding Source? Again, the GPL has the same 'problem'. How so? If you can't give someone the source, you're in in violation. If I distribute object code according to GPLv2 clause 3a or to GPLv3 clause 6a, I am accompanying it with source code. Once I've done so, there's no chance I can't give someone the source code, since I've already complied with the license and have no further obligations. If I distribute object code by offering access to copy from some place, like, e.g., a network server, I have to offer access to copy the source code from the same place (the last part of GPLv2 Section 3 states that this is equivalent to complying to clause 3a; in the case of GPLv3, this is clause 6d, provided one chooses to offer access from the same place, e.g. same server). Once I've set things up this way, I am offering equivalent access to object code and to source code: source will be available as long as object is. Again, I have no obligations for the future. These are the DFSG-free ways to distribute object code and comply with the GNU GPL. Making or forwarding written offers is a non-free option, hence we should not take it into account. Please note that, in both the above-described cases, I am *already* distributing object code and thus bearing the (possible) costs or difficulties associated with distributing software. The GPL merely refrains from allowing the distribution of object code, unless I also make the source available (in one of the two outlined ways, or else with the non-free written offers, should I prefer that path...). In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing software. I modified the application and simply want to run it on my server. In order to do so, I am compelled to offer to distribute source code to users. Let's see what I can do: * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me It seems the only option left is shutting the application down whenever the source-distributing server goes off-line, which is a significant restriction on the act of running a modified application. -- 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 pgpdIXxMamABC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:03:04 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: [...] 4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I wouldn't be able to remain anonymous) The real problem would not be anonymity (which could be reached via technical measures: onion routing, anonymous remailers, nym servers, ...), but the forced publication of code. If I distribute through a public hosting service, I am compelled to make the code public (as opposed to distribute it to my users only). IMHO, this is the real reason why I could be unable to use a public hosting service, in certain circumstances... As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP... -- 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 pgp1aEQUeNnjZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Miriam Ruiz wrote: davi.leals wrote: Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service. How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code? Arc Riley wrote: These are technical challenges, not legal problems, and will be solved by the community as the need arises. I can not said it better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miriam Ruiz wrote: [...] And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous (dissident test)? If you do not modify the code or you do not have remote users, you do not have to offer your copy of the Source Code. = you cannot modify the webapp = breaks DFSG 1 or 5. See the problem? [...] It is who install the software (the webapp, etc.) who have to solve how to fulfill to the AGPLv3 license, no Debian. Our users are one of our priorities. We must care about them, not just dump this problem on their heads. If the software is free, fine. If it is non-free for some uses, then users should be told. Anyway, you could send an 'official' and maybe public question to the FSF asking for advice. IMHO the Debian project must not reject any feedback about this subject. FSF were asked about this as part of the AGPLv3 drafting process by Francesco Poli. (As with the GPLv3, I was locked out by the webapp.) FSF refused to answer, resolving the question with a blank response. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?id=3584 Why would this be different if we simply asked again? Perhaps one of the Affero advocates could try to get a reply? In the absence of feedback, what should we do? I'm happy to take the clarifications from project authors for their projects, but in general? Hope that explains, -- 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]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Francesco Poli wrote: I think you chose the wrong example: the written offer possibility (clause 3b in GPLv2, clause 6b in GPLv3) is a non-free path through the GPL. In other words, if making the written offer were the *only* way to distribute GPL'd object code, the GPL would *not* meet the DFSG. This is my own opinion, but it seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars: see, for instance http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00595.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00600.html I think that proves, rather than disproves, my original point: these hypothetical scenarios have gotten out of hand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080828 10:53]: Since anyone can get a free, anonymous account at any number of free VCS solutions, and since a dissident only need share source with those they're already permitting remote access over a network to, I do not see any situation where this would cause a problem. First, the dissident has to publish his code. This can be huge cost. There is not many method to hide content in something that still cannot be found when you know how exactly they work (and being found - not being decrypted - is the dangerous thing here). Secondly, even in more general layout there are problems. Publishing things means you are liable for them - at least in many jurisdictions (and no disclaimer text will help there). Sane juristdictions will protect you if you give things away for free and use enough care. You will use enough care anyway if you publish something for others (at least I hope), but if you just want to run a modified variant with some little hack to make it work on your machine, making this work can be quite a bit of extra cost (and I want to see the judge that thinks I never before looked at it, I justed needed to run this service urgently and this line would not compile and changed it. - No I never looked what that function called would do and that it has some deletion code in there as a sign of enough care). Even when you do not care about liability, there are many modifications you cannot just publish. Putting passwords or private data directly in the source code may not be good style or anything to be proud of. But if the right to modify is limited to people being able to do beatiful modifications, I cannot call that free. Really? Let's look at some options; BerliOS - free. Gna! - free. Launchpad - free. Savannah - free. Sourceforge - free (with advertising) All of these services are extremely stable, I believe all have been in operation for more than 3 years, and these are only the most popular. This is 2008, not 1998, nobody needs to pay to host free software anymore. And how do you use them? Does anything of them support branches to remote repositories? I'd also guess that such services are not very happy about getting multiple projects, first injecting many megabytes from another site, then doing an ugly patch and not responding to bug reports or mails? (Assuming you have a shell there to get the megabytes there from the original source, first downloading to you and then uploading somewhere else is expensive in most parts of the world). I'll point out, again, the phrase standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software in section 13; it is neither standard nor customary for a modified version of code which is several gigs in size to be distributed in full. We upload a patch or create a VCS branch for our modifications and the license is fufilled. Sorry, but I see no way to make an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. not say that the whole source code is available. Telling them an URL of the original program and of a patch might perhaps be considered enough, but having to stop your service when the upstream service no longer runs or no longer contains the version is question[1], or only to be prepared to react on this occasion, is not a negligible cost. Hope that explains why I consider it non-free, Bernhard R. Link [1] This does not need bad intent, upstream and upstreams server might be in a country where some patent is found and they are no longer allowed to run the server or place it on another one. (Which means that they might no longer have a license, but why should that mean that you are screwed?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This thread has slipped into absurdity. That largely seems to be the result of talking past each other. These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright holders are just biting at the bit to take people to court retroactively for short-term lack of compliance at no fault of the software modifier. Whether such cases are at no fault of the software modifier is a significant point of difference, as I see it. The AGPL requires the software redistributor to make corresponding source available to a remote user of the program. We have yet to see any indication that failing to make such modifications available on request is allowed by the license. If such a situation arose where a copyright holder did start engaging in vengence litigation I don't see why you think vengeance litigation (whatever that may be) is the consideration here. We're trying to determine whether a work under the license is free, and examining the effect that enforcement of the license terms would have on the freedom of the work. Whether you consider such enforcement likely or not seems irrelevant to this point. -- \ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the | `\ best.” —Oscar Wilde | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
