Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-30 Thread MJ Ray
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I modify it (say to remove the capability of getting source code) and run it on my own computer, allowing remote users to interact with it. Assuming the output sent to the users is *not* a derived work (e.g. no AGPLv3 HTML templates, etc),

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-13 Thread Wesley J. Landaker
(I wrote this message 2007-11-19 and somehow it ended up stuck unsent in an error mail-queue during a network-outage. I wasn't goign to resend since this thread is now old, but I didn't see anyone make the same points, so here it is...) On Monday 19 November 2007 22:26:21 Francesco Poli wrote:

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-06 Thread Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:35:35 +0100, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For now, as regards the interaction issue my inclination is to assume that it is implicit in this that (a) we are talking about some level of direct input/output interaction from the user's point of view. i.e. software

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-06 Thread John Halton
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote: So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on delivered

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-12-06 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:46:57 + John Halton wrote: [...] As regards the AGPL web server and other similar hypotheticals, I think this would come down to user/community pressure: i.e. if someone chooses a licence that is impractical then either the software won't find many users, or the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never *directly* interacts with public users remotely through a computer network? Apologies for

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Iain Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing we did not change is the phrase interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network. Many commenters expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs that users manipulate for web-based

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Iain Nicol
Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:40:09 +0100, John Halton wrote: Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if the FSF has given any guidance on what they regard as interaction over a network? This is an issue that came up in the previous thread. It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:07:14 am John Halton wrote: So to use an example that I'm most familiar with, if you have a Wordpress installation running on top of a LAMP stack then neither Linux, Apache, MySQL nor PHP is itself capable of providing access to its source for remote users. Each

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:01:09 -0600 Iain Nicol wrote: [meaning of interaction over a network] It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly as possible. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, I've found the following GPLv3 FAQ[1]: | In AGPLv3, what counts as interacting with

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the server which then goes and talks

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Walter Landry
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've said before, I have some hesitations about the AGPL and its possible consequences. However, we shouldn't underestimate the effects of community pressure to help counteract the potential problems: if the AGPL is (ab)used in an inappropriate way by a

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are also examples where a company did not do anything until they were served with legal papers. If you are only going to resort to community pressure, then you might as well just make it a non-binding request rather than a legal

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:50:32 am John Halton wrote: On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and links... and the apache server by

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:29:38 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: [...] Oy... this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere good. They should have just written a license that says you must give back your changes, even if you don't distribute and just called it good... Like they did with GFDL's

Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread Francesco Poli
Hi all, the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by the FSF. The plain text form can be downloaded from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt The only changes with respect to the Last Call Draft (discussed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00032.html) are

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:18:10 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Section 13 of the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 is quoted below for reference. My comments follow. The usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi all, the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by the FSF. The plain text form can be downloaded from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt Thanks for the heads-up. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access denied error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal application, as well? Of the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, John Halton wrote: Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with running the modified version of the Program. No, it's a cost associated with *modifying* the program, as is the cost of supplying the source code under the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:56:23 + John Halton wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: The term user is not clearly defined. [...] Where do we draw the line? I'm inclined to say, At common sense, taking into account the intended functionality of the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:35:35 + John Halton wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Hi all, the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by the FSF. The plain text form can be downloaded from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Monday 19 November 2007 02:56:23 pm John Halton wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access denied error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When I visit a portal, am I a user of

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:26:53PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: And, of course, web applications are often a large set of scripts... dozens upon dozens of individual scripts. If I write a single new script that adds some level of functionality, but in no way changes anything else to the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-19 Thread John Halton
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never *directly* interacts with public users remotely through a computer network? Your