3 ms·

> I don't see a license that forbids the generation of revenue ... The AGPL does not "forbid the generation of revenue". There exist revenue-generating service

> I don't see a license that forbids the generation of revenue ... The AGPL does not "forbid the generation of revenue". There exist revenue-generating services powered by AGPL software. > Nothing is being used improperly or against the spirit of free software when software freedom is exercised (by a service provider) If that exercise of software freedom hampers an end-user from exercising their software freedom, then that's pretty clearly "against the spirit of free software".

sneak 6y ago
I wrote: > forbids the generation of revenue by selling access to a service API using a private fork That's the thing - "software freedom" is being applied to software that you have no reasonable expectation of having access to: 1) you didn't write it 2) it hasn't been provided to you 3) it's running on someone else's computer There is no reasonable basis for claiming that you have the "freedom" to access information in someone else's computer that you have nothing to do with. That's actually a privacy violation.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  I disagree that "it hasn't been provided to you". Imagine a regular desktop program that you can only use through RDP or VNC. Is that not provided to the user either?
  - sneak 6y ago
    No, only the outputs of the software are provided. The software remains wholly within the confines of the computer executing it. There's a clear distinction between sending someone a file that represents computer software (source or object code) (a product) and sending someone the output of a calculation you have been requested to perform (a service).
    - pritambaral 6y ago
      > There's a clear distinction between ... The distinction is meaningless to the user in the example your parent cites.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  You forgot a point in your numbered list: 4) You're using it. ---- > access information in someone else's computer that you have nothing to do with. 1. "nothing to do with" is an absolute claim. Your line of argumentation has been heavily reliant on absolute statements, refusing to understand nuance. 2. If the user truly had "nothing to do with" some information on some computer, the AGPL places no requirement for them to be provided access to that information. 3. Interacting with a service provided by a software != having "nothing to do with" said software. ---- > ... claiming that you have the "freedom" to access information ... For the last time, that is not how the AGPL works. I strongly urge you to go and actually read it, or even https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL.html Now, on to the specific rebuttal: The AGPL does not _force_ a user upon you, the service provider. It does not grant the user any "freedom" to access any information, let alone arbitrary information. It cannot even be used by a user to force themselves on you. ---- > That's actually a privacy violation. By your line of reasoning, you have violated my privacy by way of your writing showing up on my computer. Do you see the absurdity in that?

sneak 6y ago

I wrote: > forbids the generation of revenue by selling access to a service API using a private fork That's the thing - "software freedom" is being applied to software that you have no reasonable expectation of having access to: 1) you didn't write it 2) it hasn't been provided to you 3) it's running on someone else's computer There is no reasonable basis for claiming that you have the "freedom" to access information in someone else's computer that you have nothing to do with. That's actually a privacy violation.

josephcsible 6y ago
I disagree that "it hasn't been provided to you". Imagine a regular desktop program that you can only use through RDP or VNC. Is that not provided to the user either?
- sneak 6y ago
  No, only the outputs of the software are provided. The software remains wholly within the confines of the computer executing it. There's a clear distinction between sending someone a file that represents computer software (source or object code) (a product) and sending someone the output of a calculation you have been requested to perform (a service).
  - pritambaral 6y ago
    > There's a clear distinction between ... The distinction is meaningless to the user in the example your parent cites.
pritambaral 6y ago
You forgot a point in your numbered list: 4) You're using it. ---- > access information in someone else's computer that you have nothing to do with. 1. "nothing to do with" is an absolute claim. Your line of argumentation has been heavily reliant on absolute statements, refusing to understand nuance. 2. If the user truly had "nothing to do with" some information on some computer, the AGPL places no requirement for them to be provided access to that information. 3. Interacting with a service provided by a software != having "nothing to do with" said software. ---- > ... claiming that you have the "freedom" to access information ... For the last time, that is not how the AGPL works. I strongly urge you to go and actually read it, or even https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL.html Now, on to the specific rebuttal: The AGPL does not _force_ a user upon you, the service provider. It does not grant the user any "freedom" to access any information, let alone arbitrary information. It cannot even be used by a user to force themselves on you. ---- > That's actually a privacy violation. By your line of reasoning, you have violated my privacy by way of your writing showing up on my computer. Do you see the absurdity in that?