4 ms·

> creative commons by-nc-sa Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-

by nathcd 8y ago

> creative commons by-nc-sa Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... > Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website. If you want your copyleft to apply to over-the-network users, you want AGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

gpm 8y ago
Two problems with the AGPL. The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components. The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though). [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable
- chii 8y ago
  > One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession"). As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
  - gpm 8y ago
    > That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that). EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_.... (Disclaimer: IANAL)
    - chii 8y ago
      > If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. Only for the purposes of execution can this copy be retained (as it's impossible to not make a copy while in memory). However, I cannot keep the executable in memory, and use it for any other purpose (including letting someone else also execute it) unless authorised by the copyright holder. In AGPL, the js/css etc are copyrighted. But the transmission isn't from the copyright holder to end user, but from an licensee to an end user. There's no relationship between the end user and the copyright holder. But the licensee is bound (by their very license) to allow the end user access any sources, despite them not having any relationship with the copyright holder. This licence doesn't contain any illegal clauses, and is voluntarily entered into by both parties, with consideration exchanged (it being the promise to make source available). Therefore, it's a legal contract. Now, as for whether it's enforceable is hard to say, but I do believe it is sound...but IANAL of course.
      - gpm 8y ago
        Oh, hold on. The AGPL probably works for client side js/css. But that's not really a surprise since the GPL probably works for client side js/css. What I am not sure it works for is strictly server side code. The FSF has argued that the AGPL/GPL is not a contract. Other lawyers have argued it is a contract. I take no position on that argument, which is a good part of why I simply say "may" be found unenforceable.

by nathcd 8y ago

gpm 8y ago

Two problems with the AGPL. The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components. The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though). [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable

chii 8y ago
> One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession"). As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
- gpm 8y ago
  > That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading. Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that). EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_.... (Disclaimer: IANAL)
  - chii 8y ago
    > If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. Only for the purposes of execution can this copy be retained (as it's impossible to not make a copy while in memory). However, I cannot keep the executable in memory, and use it for any other purpose (including letting someone else also execute it) unless authorised by the copyright holder. In AGPL, the js/css etc are copyrighted. But the transmission isn't from the copyright holder to end user, but from an licensee to an end user. There's no relationship between the end user and the copyright holder. But the licensee is bound (by their very license) to allow the end user access any sources, despite them not having any relationship with the copyright holder. This licence doesn't contain any illegal clauses, and is voluntarily entered into by both parties, with consideration exchanged (it being the promise to make source available). Therefore, it's a legal contract. Now, as for whether it's enforceable is hard to say, but I do believe it is sound...but IANAL of course.
    - gpm 8y ago
      Oh, hold on. The AGPL probably works for client side js/css. But that's not really a surprise since the GPL probably works for client side js/css. What I am not sure it works for is strictly server side code. The FSF has argued that the AGPL/GPL is not a contract. Other lawyers have argued it is a contract. I take no position on that argument, which is a good part of why I simply say "may" be found unenforceable.