Re: AGPL3 and client code
At Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:46:37 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I personally think that software solely released under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 fails to comply with the DFSG (i.e.: is non-free). It turns out there is already AGPL software [0] in sid/main as Miriam Ruiz points out [1] in a blog entry. Does that mean that the question of DFSG freeness of the AGPL of is settled, at least for the moment? David [0] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/y/yocto-reader/yocto-reader_0.9.3/yocto-reader.copyright [1] http://www.miriamruiz.es/weblog/?p=192 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AGPL3 and client code
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:20 PM, David Bremner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It turns out there is already AGPL software [0] in sid/main as Miriam Ruiz points out [1] in a blog entry. Does that mean that the question of DFSG freeness of the AGPL of is settled, at least for the moment? It means that the ftpmasters will probably accept AGPL material into main, unless someone convinces them that the AGPL is non-free or the Debian membership overrides their decision with a GR. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AGPL3 and client code
Hi All; I have been talking (with the help of Patrick Ohly) to the folks at Funambol about how the AGPL section 13 (about providing source to clients [1] ) is meant to apply to e.g. client code. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mobile.funambol.user/905 After some discussion, the FSF has updated their FAQ to address this question. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser I will quote the relevant text here: This should not be required in any typical server-client relationship. AGPLv3 requires a program to offer source code to “all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network.” In most server-client architectures, it simply wouldn't be reasonable to argue that the server operator is a “user” interacting with the client in any meaningful sense. Consider HTTP as an example. All HTTP clients expect servers to provide certain functionality: they should send specified responses to well-formed requests. The reverse is not true: servers cannot assume that the client will do anything in particular with the data they send. The client may be a web browser, an RSS reader, a spider, a network monitoring tool, or some special-purpose program. The server can make absolutely no assumptions about what the client will do—so there's no meaningful way for the server operator to be considered a user of that software. If one accepts this as authoritative (and yes, I realize this not obvious to everyone on debian-legal), then it would address one of the major concerns of the last round of AGPL discussion. My question is whether the interpretation of Section 13 does not apply, unless you are using the code in Software as Service, in which case it is not so unreasonable would be enough to qualify software [2] for debian main. If the FSF FAQ was not authoritative enough, I think upstream might be willing to attach a clarification. CC's are welcome, but not mandatory; I will followup via the archives (eventually :-) ) David [1] Here is the text of AGPL Sec. 13 for reference 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. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. [2] I am in particular thinking about http://download.forge.objectweb.org/sync4j/funambol-cpp-api-7.0.2.zip -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AGPL3 and client code
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:59:21 -0400 David Bremner wrote: Hi All; Hi! I have been talking (with the help of Patrick Ohly) to the folks at Funambol about how the AGPL section 13 (about providing source to clients [1] ) is meant to apply to e.g. client code. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mobile.funambol.user/905 After some discussion, the FSF has updated their FAQ to address this question. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser [...] If one accepts this as authoritative (and yes, I realize this not obvious to everyone on debian-legal), then it would address one of the major concerns of the last round of AGPL discussion. Thanks for pointing out this FAQ. It could become the canonical interpretation of the license at some point in the future; however, individual copyright holders (other than the FSF) may always interpret the GNU AfferoGPL v3 differently... My question is whether the interpretation of Section 13 does not apply, unless you are using the code in Software as Service, in which case it is not so unreasonable would be enough to qualify software [2] for debian main. I personally think that software solely released under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 fails to comply with the DFSG (i.e.: is non-free). The issues I see in the license are not limited to network clients only: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html As always, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. If the FSF FAQ was not authoritative enough, I think upstream might be willing to attach a clarification. IMO, the best thing that upstream can do to avoid freeness doubts is licensing under the terms of the GNU GPL, rather than choosing the GNU AfferoGPL. CC's are welcome, but not mandatory; I will followup via the archives (eventually :-) ) Cc:s added. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGoyMIH8R6s.pgp Description: PGP signature
