4 ms·

> The use of cloud services to sidestep the AGPL requirements is the newest loophole to try and avoid the requirements that the software author intended. See,

> The use of cloud services to sidestep the AGPL requirements is the newest loophole to try and avoid the requirements that the software author intended. See, I disagree with you wholly here. Cloud-based services are literally what the AGPL was designed to "counter". Changes to the application _itself_ need to be released, but anything supporting said application is out-of-scope of the license. > "Derived work" has no concrete definition. I think the definition given by the copyright office is as close as we'll get. [2] >> A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist-ing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrange-ments, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works. Another common type of derivative work is a “new edition” of a preexisting work in which the edito-rial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work. >> To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work. Specifically that last sentence quoted. Management software that does not contain the original code is not a derived work. > Work licensed under the SSPL has almost all of the same freedoms AGPL works have, unless you are a cloud provider attempting to wiggle your way around the licensing requirements for derived works, and only then the additional clause steps in. I also wholly disagree with you here. SSPL violates the 4 Freedoms [1], and as such is substantially different. It's not something that you can go, "well, but I don't like that, so I'm not going to include it in my definition of equal". Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose") cannot be "qualified with "conditions", otherwise it is not a freedom. Freedom 0 is also fundamental for the other Freedoms to even be meaningful. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [2] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

sparkie 8y ago
> A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist-ing works. A management software might be considered a derived work, depending on how coupled it is with the underlying software. There is no black and white definition. The FSF state[1] >> Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). >> So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. [1]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose") How does the SSPL violate the freedom in a way that the AGPL does not? The AGPL places a condition on this freedom. The condition that if you make the work available through a public server, then you must make the source code available too. The SSPL is attempting to do the same for what it perceives as derived works (the management software, which is useless without the underlying software). It doesn't place any restriction on use, because you are still free to use it. You just have the condition that you make the code of your derived works available too, similar to the AGPL.

sparkie 8y ago

> A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already exist-ing works. A management software might be considered a derived work, depending on how coupled it is with the underlying software. There is no black and white definition. The FSF state[1] >> Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). >> So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. [1]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose") How does the SSPL violate the freedom in a way that the AGPL does not? The AGPL places a condition on this freedom. The condition that if you make the work available through a public server, then you must make the source code available too. The SSPL is attempting to do the same for what it perceives as derived works (the management software, which is useless without the underlying software). It doesn't place any restriction on use, because you are still free to use it. You just have the condition that you make the code of your derived works available too, similar to the AGPL.