5 ms·

Why not AGPL + Commercial? To me this sounds like an even better option, as it closes some GPL loopholes such as "hiding" modified GPL code behind a service.

by vog 9y ago

k__ 9y ago
I thought they closed the loopholes with v3?
- vog 9y ago
  They closed all loopholes regarding software that runs on the user's computer. For software that is used over the network (such as web applications), the GPLv3 grants the rights only to the server admins, because in the spirit of the GPLv3 these are the users of the software. In contrast, AGPLv3 states that in this case the real end users are those receiving the granted rights.
- belorn 9y ago
  Different loopholes. V3 closes the idea of pretending to give someone permission to modify and share software, but then using encryption or patents to make it impossible in practice. Like selling a car but then withholding the ignition key. AGPL closes the idea that someone just ship a thin client and have everything running on a server, which is an experience that can be almost indistinguishable from receiving a copy. Since GPL explicitly do not treat the transmission of a copy and using a service as identical, AGPL go as far as copyright allows and tries to fix that.
  - k__ 9y ago
    Ah, okay. I knew about the AGPL and I thought it was merged into the GPL with v3.
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      It was included in GPLv3 drafts and then removed and split into a different license. Insider politics, but story as I take it basically that Google and similar threatened nuclear war on FSF and GPL if it had the Affero clause. FSF decided it was more important to get buy-in on other loophole-closings (tivoization, software patents) than to risk getting no buy-in for the update. Some people involved are still very frustrated about the compromise.
      - richardfontana 9y ago
        I was directly involved in the decision to split AGPL into a different license (as a lawyer for the FSF at the time). Your story attributing this development to pressure from Google is completely false (though I have heard something like it as well). Early public drafts of GPLv3 did not exactly have an Affero condition - rather they provided for compatibility with a then-nonexistent class of licenses with Affero conditions satisfying certain criteria (AGPLv1 was not one of them). This approach was disliked by two different constituencies. One was a group of intellectuals who were associated closely with Debian, who largely would have preferred a full-fledged Affero condition in GPLv3. The other was a corporate constituency, but it wasn't Google (or other web 2.0-type companies); rather I would say it was essentially FinSec end users. This group seemed to be worried about the possibility of normalization of Affero-type conditions which it was thought the compatibility provision in early GPLv3 drafts would cause. FSF certainly wanted to get buyin for the provisions dealing with software patents and 'TiVoization', but the companies preoccupied with those provisions were mostly unconcerned about the Affero issue. Edit: There was some concern from corporate interests, at least, about the whole prospect of a proliferation of future Affero-like GPLv3-compatible non-GPLv3 licenses, which the early drafts of GPLv3 specifically contemplated. This was one of the motivations for redesigning the policy to have a single, FSF-authorized Affero license that would be, in all likelihood, the only (partially) GPLv3-compatible license with an Affero condition. The other motivation was to address the concerns of the 'Debian intellectuals' I refer to above.
        quadrangle 9y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I did mean to say Google mainly as a stand-in for [that sort of company]. Good to be corrected on being wrong even there. But the confusion probably stems from the way that Google came out as anti-AGPL in the end anyway (as we might expect). Count me as one of those people who want the alternate reality of GPLv3 = AGPLv3 and where that is widely used (but I'm in no position to know that if that decision had gone that way whether the result would have succeeded or whether the denunciation by those with conflict of interests against the Affero clause would too greatly hurt the cause — despite almost everything moving to where Affero clause is ever-more relevant, I'm not seeing much growth in AGPL unfortunately)
Nokinside 9y ago
Yes, of course. AGPL is good for this and should be considered as alternative for GPL or LGPL. It depends on the business model.
brians 9y ago
Because the AGPL, like the GFDL, is not a free software license. It doesn't allow running the software in reasonable ways. For example, given an AGPL full text search program expected to run over a web interface (and offer source over that interface), I cannot adapt it to run over postcard, SMS, or amateur shortwave radio.
- vog 9y ago
  > is not a free software license Not sure which standards you are applying here, but AGPL is accepted by FSF, DFSG and OSI. It is clearly a FLOSS licence regarding whatever authority you want to cite. (And just to be clear, we are talking about the latest version of AGPL, AGPLv3, right?) > For example, given an AGPL full text search program expected to run over a web interface (and offer source over that interface), I cannot adapt it to run over postcard, SMS, or amateur shortwave radio. Can you cite any laywer or AGPL representative who shares that interpretation? Otherwise, Poe's Law is strong here. What's the point, for the sake if a civil discussion, in deliberately misinterpreting the AGPL in such an exaggerated way?
- the8472 9y ago
  IANAL, but the AGPL only requires that you offer the source when a user interacts with it over a computer network. postcard and radio clearly do not qualify as such. Whether SMS qualifies might require some lawyer reading entrails. And you could build your SMS service on top of a network interface. Network interaction is not considered conveying the work, so it is not affected by the conveing and combined work clauses of the AGPL. In other words: Linking is viral, the must-present-source part is not if you build services and the like.

Why not AGPL + Commercial? To me this sounds like an even better option, as it closes some GPL loopholes such as "hiding" modified GPL code behind a service.

by vog 9y ago

Why not AGPL + Commercial? To me this sounds like an even better option, as it closes some GPL loopholes such as "hiding" modified GPL code behind a service.

k__ 9y ago

I thought they closed the loopholes with v3?

vog 9y ago
They closed all loopholes regarding software that runs on the user's computer. For software that is used over the network (such as web applications), the GPLv3 grants the rights only to the server admins, because in the spirit of the GPLv3 these are the users of the software. In contrast, AGPLv3 states that in this case the real end users are those receiving the granted rights.
belorn 9y ago
Different loopholes. V3 closes the idea of pretending to give someone permission to modify and share software, but then using encryption or patents to make it impossible in practice. Like selling a car but then withholding the ignition key. AGPL closes the idea that someone just ship a thin client and have everything running on a server, which is an experience that can be almost indistinguishable from receiving a copy. Since GPL explicitly do not treat the transmission of a copy and using a service as identical, AGPL go as far as copyright allows and tries to fix that.
- k__ 9y ago
  Ah, okay. I knew about the AGPL and I thought it was merged into the GPL with v3.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    It was included in GPLv3 drafts and then removed and split into a different license. Insider politics, but story as I take it basically that Google and similar threatened nuclear war on FSF and GPL if it had the Affero clause. FSF decided it was more important to get buy-in on other loophole-closings (tivoization, software patents) than to risk getting no buy-in for the update. Some people involved are still very frustrated about the compromise.
    - richardfontana 9y ago
      I was directly involved in the decision to split AGPL into a different license (as a lawyer for the FSF at the time). Your story attributing this development to pressure from Google is completely false (though I have heard something like it as well). Early public drafts of GPLv3 did not exactly have an Affero condition - rather they provided for compatibility with a then-nonexistent class of licenses with Affero conditions satisfying certain criteria (AGPLv1 was not one of them). This approach was disliked by two different constituencies. One was a group of intellectuals who were associated closely with Debian, who largely would have preferred a full-fledged Affero condition in GPLv3. The other was a corporate constituency, but it wasn't Google (or other web 2.0-type companies); rather I would say it was essentially FinSec end users. This group seemed to be worried about the possibility of normalization of Affero-type conditions which it was thought the compatibility provision in early GPLv3 drafts would cause. FSF certainly wanted to get buyin for the provisions dealing with software patents and 'TiVoization', but the companies preoccupied with those provisions were mostly unconcerned about the Affero issue. Edit: There was some concern from corporate interests, at least, about the whole prospect of a proliferation of future Affero-like GPLv3-compatible non-GPLv3 licenses, which the early drafts of GPLv3 specifically contemplated. This was one of the motivations for redesigning the policy to have a single, FSF-authorized Affero license that would be, in all likelihood, the only (partially) GPLv3-compatible license with an Affero condition. The other motivation was to address the concerns of the 'Debian intellectuals' I refer to above.
      - quadrangle 9y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I did mean to say Google mainly as a stand-in for [that sort of company]. Good to be corrected on being wrong even there. But the confusion probably stems from the way that Google came out as anti-AGPL in the end anyway (as we might expect). Count me as one of those people who want the alternate reality of GPLv3 = AGPLv3 and where that is widely used (but I'm in no position to know that if that decision had gone that way whether the result would have succeeded or whether the denunciation by those with conflict of interests against the Affero clause would too greatly hurt the cause — despite almost everything moving to where Affero clause is ever-more relevant, I'm not seeing much growth in AGPL unfortunately)

Nokinside 9y ago

Yes, of course. AGPL is good for this and should be considered as alternative for GPL or LGPL. It depends on the business model.

brians 9y ago

Because the AGPL, like the GFDL, is not a free software license. It doesn't allow running the software in reasonable ways. For example, given an AGPL full text search program expected to run over a web interface (and offer source over that interface), I cannot adapt it to run over postcard, SMS, or amateur shortwave radio.

vog 9y ago
> is not a free software license Not sure which standards you are applying here, but AGPL is accepted by FSF, DFSG and OSI. It is clearly a FLOSS licence regarding whatever authority you want to cite. (And just to be clear, we are talking about the latest version of AGPL, AGPLv3, right?) > For example, given an AGPL full text search program expected to run over a web interface (and offer source over that interface), I cannot adapt it to run over postcard, SMS, or amateur shortwave radio. Can you cite any laywer or AGPL representative who shares that interpretation? Otherwise, Poe's Law is strong here. What's the point, for the sake if a civil discussion, in deliberately misinterpreting the AGPL in such an exaggerated way?
the8472 9y ago
IANAL, but the AGPL only requires that you offer the source when a user interacts with it over a computer network. postcard and radio clearly do not qualify as such. Whether SMS qualifies might require some lawyer reading entrails. And you could build your SMS service on top of a network interface. Network interaction is not considered conveying the work, so it is not affected by the conveing and combined work clauses of the AGPL. In other words: Linking is viral, the must-present-source part is not if you build services and the like.