Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-11 Thread John Cowan
David Woolley scripsit:

> Not really about freedom then.  They lose the freedom to hide their
> upgrades, but you don't.  The tactic may be within the rules, but it
> seems against the spirit.   I though the real intent of the AGPL was
> to ensure that users could see the enhanced code, rather than as a
> way of feeding back to a privileged originator.

No, it feeds forward to a user, just like the GPL -- but "user" doesn't
have to be someone actually in possession of the code, unlike the GPL.
In any case, no license can limit the absolute freedom of the copyright
owner to do what they like with their own.

IMO, the question of SaaS, specifically remote computation as
a service, is the place where the Free Software bus goes off
the road and plunges to its doom in the ravine below.  Stallman
believes that the act of sending one's data to a system owned by
someone else for them to do something with it (not merely store
it or communicate it to others) is intrinsically unethical.  See

for his views on the subject.

What it boils down to is that Stallman not only wants us to be free, he
wants us *not* to be free to choose limited unfreedom, either.  If this
were really a principle and not just something specific to computing,
it would equally forbid me to send out my laundry to be washed, as in
principle (though not in practice, considering my lease) I could wash
it in my own washing machine.

> In any case, the originator can only use a clean room re-implementation
> of the enhancements if they want to retain the privileged position of
> being able to charge for their code.  If they include the upgrades as
> is, they are now downstream of an AGPL contributor and must use the
> AGPL rules.

Correct.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
You escaped them by the will-death and the Way of the Black Wheel.
I could not.  --Great-Souled Sam
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-11 Thread David Woolley

On 11/06/14 22:24, Ben Tilly wrote:

The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue.  Because now they have to
acknowledge you, adn let you see their improvements.


Not really about freedom then.  They lose the freedom to hide their 
upgrades, but you don't.  The tactic may be within the rules, but it 
seems against the spirit.   I though the real intent of the AGPL was to 
ensure that users could see the enhanced code, rather than as a way of 
feeding back to a privileged originator.


In any case, the originator can only use a clean room re-implementation 
of the enhancements if they want to retain the privileged position of 
being able to charge for their code.  If they include the upgrades as 
is, they are now downstream of an AGPL contributor and must use the AGPL 
rules.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-11 Thread Ben Tilly
The downside of the GPL for networked programs is that someone can
receive the program, modify it to strip references to you out of the
output, improve it, and then host a competitor.  There is no legal
issue as long as they don't redistribute.

The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue.  Because now they have to
acknowledge you, adn let you see their improvements.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Woolley
 wrote:
> On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:
>
>> I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
>> license it as they want.  Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
>> while not offering a download themselves for their users.
>
>
> I find it difficult to work out why someone would use the AGPL unless there
> was an upstream AGPL constraint or the wanted the software to be free of
> charge to users of their service.
>
> The only thought I had was that it was to put competitors at a disadvantage,
> as they would have to provide free source, but that doesn't really hold
> water.
>
> As far as I can see, for someone who didn't want to maximise availability of
> the code and wasn't under an AGPL constraint from upstream it would be
> better to use the plain GPL.
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-11 Thread David Woolley

On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:


I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want.  Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
while not offering a download themselves for their users.


I find it difficult to work out why someone would use the AGPL unless 
there was an upstream AGPL constraint or the wanted the software to be 
free of charge to users of their service.


The only thought I had was that it was to put competitors at a 
disadvantage, as they would have to provide free source, but that 
doesn't really hold water.


As far as I can see, for someone who didn't want to maximise 
availability of the code and wasn't under an AGPL constraint from 
upstream it would be better to use the plain GPL.


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-10 Thread Kuno Woudt

Hi,

On 10-06-14 16:10, David Woolley wrote:

On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:

I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.


I think people are missing the point here.  Assuming the requestor has 
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL, 
and, if allowed would make the AGPL effectively indistinguishable from 
the GPL, as you could select a fee that was so large that it was 
unrealistic to exercise the additional rights you gain from the AGPL.


Where you have the option to make an arbitrary charge is for supply of 
the software when you never obtained a copy of the software in any 
form from them and never used the service based on that software.


If the site is AGPL compliant, there is no need for someone who is 
using the service to request anyone to supply the software, as there 
will be a link providing a free download.


I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can 
license it as they want.  Including selling it to you under AGPLv3, 
while not offering a download themselves for their users.


-- Kuno.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-10 Thread David Woolley

On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:

I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.


I think people are missing the point here.  Assuming the requestor has 
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL, 
and, if allowed would make the AGPL effectively indistinguishable from 
the GPL, as you could select a fee that was so large that it was 
unrealistic to exercise the additional rights you gain from the AGPL.


Where you have the option to make an arbitrary charge is for supply of 
the software when you never obtained a copy of the software in any form 
from them and never used the service based on that software.


If the site is AGPL compliant, there is no need for someone who is using 
the service to request anyone to supply the software, as  there will be 
a link providing a free download.





On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr  wrote:

Here is an excerpt from the response I received:

"Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20."

Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-10 Thread jonathon

On 6/9/2014 10:11 PM, ldr ldr wrote:


"Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the

 script as you want. However you can get the script for $20."

 >Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?

Yes.

The primary reason most FLOSS is distributed gratis, is because FLOSS 
licenses don't prohibit one from giving away the program, provided 
source code is also included.
That same non-prohibition is why it is not uncommon to find FLOSS that 
has been re-labelled, and sold in the same price range as the non-FLOSS 
competitor.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-10 Thread Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
Free / open source software like freedom, not like "free beer" :-)
No FOSS license prohibits making some money out of all the work done...
P-E


2014-06-10 7:51 GMT+02:00 ChanMaxthon :

> I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr 
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
> >
> > "Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
> > script as you want. However you can get the script for $20."
> >
> > Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>



-- 
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
pe.schm...@googlemail.com
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

2014-06-09 Thread ChanMaxthon
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr  wrote:
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
> 
> "Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
> script as you want. However you can get the script for $20."
> 
> Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss