5 ms·

> Freedom includes freedom to have privacy. You have that. The AGPL provides rights to _users_ of your software; that's it, no one else. If _you don't provide_

> Freedom includes freedom to have privacy. You have that. The AGPL provides rights to _users_ of your software; that's it, no one else. If _you don't provide_ the modified software to someone, they can't demand your private patches. No one can "bring down the machinery of state copyright enforcement" against you, unless you interact with them first and provide them your modified software and they use it. And even when you do that — when you provide your software to someone — they still can't demand that you "publish" your private patches. Only that you give to _them_ the modified software under the same rights that you received the original software. Only to _them_, not the public. No publishing required. _They_ are free to publish the software they received, of course, as were you when you first received the original software; but you aren't obligated to publish it. ---- The only difference between AGPL and GPL is that the definition of what constitutes "distribution" of software is extended. The AGPL changes only "distribution" and nothing else in the GPL.

sneak 6y ago
Yeah, and running a business on my own computer by providing API services to someone is not distribution of software. Running an API business shouldn't force me to distribute anything to anyone.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  Consider "Service as a Software Substitute": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... Do you consider it a problem? If not, why not? If so, what other than the AGPL do you propose to fix it?
  - sneak 6y ago
    No, I don't consider it a problem at all. Nothing is being used improperly or against the spirit of free software when software freedom is exercised (by a service provider) - that's the whole point. I really think the whole AGPL is simply sour grapes, because most GPL-using businesses have not figured out how to become profitable. ("open source is not a business model.") The anti-corporate, anti-business types see people exercising their software freedoms and using free software to make money, and think it's a problem that needs to be stopped. It's interesting that TPTB have ruled such "ethical source" licenses as nonfree - you're not allowed to restrict Freedom 0 to say that users aren't allowed to, say, use the software to produce bombs. That's not a free software license. Using it to generate revenue however, is seen as a "loophole" to be "closed". I don't see a license that forbids the generation of revenue by selling access to a service API using a private fork as any less nonfree than one that forbids the production of bombs.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      Consider an extreme example -- someone takes LibreOffice and many other GPL-licensed programs and creates a business where you can only access them through the internet. They make massive (useful changes) to LibreOffice to the point that a vast majority of users switch to the online version because it is objectively better. However, because you can only access their fork of a GPL project over the internet, there is no requirement for them to provide users the source code of software they're using (which is based on software developed by other people under the social contract of the GPL). Thus users are using software which is technically free software but they have no mechanism by which to excerise any of their freedoms nor even see the source code of a program they use purely because the protocol used to display the interface is HTTP rather than X (yes, it's also not running on the same computer, but from a user's perspective it doesn't matter if it runs on your computer or not -- they are using and depend on the program, even if it happens to be running on a different computer). Do you agree that this scenario is a problem, and the GPL is not helping to solve it? If so, then you now understand the reason behind the AGPL and how it is clearly in line with the spirit of free software. If not, then I'm not sure you fully buy into the concept of user freedom. User freedom is a holistic thing, it isn't a technical definition that cares about specific implementation details. I would argue this is a bigger issue than tivoisation, because at least with tivoisation you can at least get the source code (even though you cannot use your freedoms on the hardware you bought). In this SaaS scenario, you can't even see the source code of software you are using.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Well, where the software is running changes the whole fact of the matter. Something entirely different is happening when I'm running software on my computer, using it to provide i/o services to you, and when I provide software to you to run on your own computer. One is a service, the other is a product. The hypothetical LibreOffice fork, with their private modifications on their own private computer, is entirely within the bounds of reason to keep those modifications private and generate revenue with it, if people want to pay them for the services they provide with it. It's no different than me using LibreOffice to produce private documents, which I then use to generate revenue for my business. My customers have no right to access my private documents that I use to provide that service: source code is no different.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  > Yeah, and running a business on my own computer by providing API services to someone is not distribution of software. Depending on the software, according to the author of said software, it can be. I'm not saying this is the case for all software, but for some kinds of software it makes sense. > Running an API business shouldn't force me to distribute anything to anyone. "Running an API business" does not "force" you to "distribute anything to anyone". Using software that was clearly meant, by its author, for the provision of a service and licensed as such to you is what requires you to do anything. And the AGPL is very tame at that: 1. you don't have to distribute non-AGPL3 and non-GPL3 code; 2. you don't have to distribute to just about anyone, only your users; and 3. you don't have to distribute anything _you haven't modified_. ---- If you were given the freedom to modify a software, then not providing users of this modified software the same freedoms you received is loss of software freedom, don't you see?
- lmm 6y ago
  What's the difference to the user? Any kind of selling software is "providing API services", if I'm invoking an API over the network then I'd like access to the source that's behind that API for the same reasons (fixing bugs, making improvements) that I'd like access to the source for an API I'm invoking on my local machine.

sneak 6y ago

Yeah, and running a business on my own computer by providing API services to someone is not distribution of software. Running an API business shouldn't force me to distribute anything to anyone.

josephcsible 6y ago
Consider "Service as a Software Substitute": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... Do you consider it a problem? If not, why not? If so, what other than the AGPL do you propose to fix it?
- sneak 6y ago
  No, I don't consider it a problem at all. Nothing is being used improperly or against the spirit of free software when software freedom is exercised (by a service provider) - that's the whole point. I really think the whole AGPL is simply sour grapes, because most GPL-using businesses have not figured out how to become profitable. ("open source is not a business model.") The anti-corporate, anti-business types see people exercising their software freedoms and using free software to make money, and think it's a problem that needs to be stopped. It's interesting that TPTB have ruled such "ethical source" licenses as nonfree - you're not allowed to restrict Freedom 0 to say that users aren't allowed to, say, use the software to produce bombs. That's not a free software license. Using it to generate revenue however, is seen as a "loophole" to be "closed". I don't see a license that forbids the generation of revenue by selling access to a service API using a private fork as any less nonfree than one that forbids the production of bombs.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    Consider an extreme example -- someone takes LibreOffice and many other GPL-licensed programs and creates a business where you can only access them through the internet. They make massive (useful changes) to LibreOffice to the point that a vast majority of users switch to the online version because it is objectively better. However, because you can only access their fork of a GPL project over the internet, there is no requirement for them to provide users the source code of software they're using (which is based on software developed by other people under the social contract of the GPL). Thus users are using software which is technically free software but they have no mechanism by which to excerise any of their freedoms nor even see the source code of a program they use purely because the protocol used to display the interface is HTTP rather than X (yes, it's also not running on the same computer, but from a user's perspective it doesn't matter if it runs on your computer or not -- they are using and depend on the program, even if it happens to be running on a different computer). Do you agree that this scenario is a problem, and the GPL is not helping to solve it? If so, then you now understand the reason behind the AGPL and how it is clearly in line with the spirit of free software. If not, then I'm not sure you fully buy into the concept of user freedom. User freedom is a holistic thing, it isn't a technical definition that cares about specific implementation details. I would argue this is a bigger issue than tivoisation, because at least with tivoisation you can at least get the source code (even though you cannot use your freedoms on the hardware you bought). In this SaaS scenario, you can't even see the source code of software you are using.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Well, where the software is running changes the whole fact of the matter. Something entirely different is happening when I'm running software on my computer, using it to provide i/o services to you, and when I provide software to you to run on your own computer. One is a service, the other is a product. The hypothetical LibreOffice fork, with their private modifications on their own private computer, is entirely within the bounds of reason to keep those modifications private and generate revenue with it, if people want to pay them for the services they provide with it. It's no different than me using LibreOffice to produce private documents, which I then use to generate revenue for my business. My customers have no right to access my private documents that I use to provide that service: source code is no different.
pritambaral 6y ago
> Yeah, and running a business on my own computer by providing API services to someone is not distribution of software. Depending on the software, according to the author of said software, it can be. I'm not saying this is the case for all software, but for some kinds of software it makes sense. > Running an API business shouldn't force me to distribute anything to anyone. "Running an API business" does not "force" you to "distribute anything to anyone". Using software that was clearly meant, by its author, for the provision of a service and licensed as such to you is what requires you to do anything. And the AGPL is very tame at that: 1. you don't have to distribute non-AGPL3 and non-GPL3 code; 2. you don't have to distribute to just about anyone, only your users; and 3. you don't have to distribute anything _you haven't modified_. ---- If you were given the freedom to modify a software, then not providing users of this modified software the same freedoms you received is loss of software freedom, don't you see?
lmm 6y ago
What's the difference to the user? Any kind of selling software is "providing API services", if I'm invoking an API over the network then I'd like access to the source that's behind that API for the same reasons (fixing bugs, making improvements) that I'd like access to the source for an API I'm invoking on my local machine.