5 ms·

I'm not quite sure that AGPL can be "permanently terminated".

monocasa 5y ago
From the AGPL itself: > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  And where is the "permanent termination" in here? Once a user ceases a violation, his license is reinstated, _permanently_. Thus, the license can't be _permanently terminated_. Permanent termination means that you will lose the right to use this software forever, without any recourse.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    No, it's reinstated permanently if the copyright holder fails to reply within 60 days of the cessation, (and provisionally entirely on the whim of the copyright holder). The SF Conservancy is openly stating that they don't plan to drop the ball in those ways.
  - erosenbe0 5y ago
    "provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" I think finally terminates == final termination == permanently terminated
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      I actually did dig this a bit, and found this interesting text [1]: If you have distributed only v3-licensed programs, you may be eligible under v3 § 8 for automatic reinstatement of rights. You are eligible for automatic reinstatement when: you correct the violation and are not contacted by a copyright holder about the violation within sixty days after the correction, or you receive, from a copyright holder, your first-ever contact regarding a GPL violation, and you correct that violation within thirty days of receipt of copyright holder’s notice. In addition to these permanent reinstatements provided under v3, violators who voluntarily correct their violation also receive provisional permission to continue distributing until they receive contact from the copyright holder. If sixty days pass without contact, that reinstatement becomes permanent. Nonetheless, you should be prepared to cease distribution during those initial sixty days should you receive a termination notice from the copyright holder. So it seems that copyright holders can specifically revoke the rights if they discover a violation. However, it is not yet a fact that the violation has indeed happened, just because someone discovered an instance of AGPL software on an internet server. Modern developers assume that 'make code available to users' equals 'publishing it on the internet'. But there is no such requirement: you may just as well provide the code by request using email, floppy disk or pigeon mail. So if somebody mails Trump Group a request to provide source code, they may very well bide their time to process mail in the orderly manner and send the copy of the code to the person who requested that code. [1]: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide....
cure 5y ago
From TFA: To comply with this important FOSS license, Trump's Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live. If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated. That's how AGPLv3's cure provision works — no exceptions — even if you're a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a former POTUS.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  This language is wrong. Rights can be terminated only if the user does not cease violating the rights. If Trump's group will publish source codes 6 months after this 30 day period, they'll instantly undo this permanent termination.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >If Trump's group will publish source codes 6 months after this 30 day period, they'll instantly undo this permanent termination. The license reads more like that only happens on your first infraction AND if you rectify your violation within 30 days.
blendergeek 5y ago
Section 8 of the AGPL spells that out. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section8 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section8
not2b 5y ago
Read section 8 of the text. It says that once an infringer has been notified, they have 30 days to fix the problem or else their license is terminated. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html edit: ninja'd.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Sigh. I know AGPL license better than most people: my company develops software licensed under AGPL and I was the one who made the choice of license. The point is, license can't be "permanently terminated", only until the user ceases license violation.
  - adrr 5y ago
    It will remedied by courts if the license isn’t satisfied and copyright infringement is still happening. Copyright holder can get an permanent injection against the offender against distributing the copyrighted work . This beyond the scope of the license though. This has happened to multiple companies violating GPL in the past. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bite-behind-it.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bi...
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. It sounds a lot like that the copyright holder has the power to permanently terminate a license even if the violation ceases.
  - sparkie 5y ago
    That isn't true. The GPL licenses can be fully revoked if the license violator does not comply with the license after 30 days of being informed by the copyright holder of their violation. There is no "automatic renewal" unless the copyright holder does not respond. You can be permanently blocked from renewing the license if the copyright holder decides so. The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
erosenbe0 5y ago
That's an excellent question. Suppose some giant company infringes willfully for months and the license owner gives notice of permanent termination. Ten years later some subsidiary or disparate business unit that has no idea of what happened and has its own legal department uses the software again compliantly. Would a judge issue an injunction if licensor filed suit citing prior notice of permanent termination that was issued subject to past alleged violations?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  License owner can't give notice of 'permanent termination', only until the user ceases the violation. Or it would not be a free license at all, violating basic freedom to run the software while not infinging any requirements.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > License owner can't give notice of 'permanent termination', only until the user ceases the violation This may require litigation to resolve. The rights are explicitly irrevocable with respect to the unmodified Program [1]. It is ambiguous, however, with respect to modifications. The "unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" confusingly implies a right to termination, though this comes into conflict with the § 2 irrevocability guarantee. Is there case law around this? [1] All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

From the AGPL itself: > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
And where is the "permanent termination" in here? Once a user ceases a violation, his license is reinstated, _permanently_. Thus, the license can't be _permanently terminated_. Permanent termination means that you will lose the right to use this software forever, without any recourse.
- monocasa 5y ago
  No, it's reinstated permanently if the copyright holder fails to reply within 60 days of the cessation, (and provisionally entirely on the whim of the copyright holder). The SF Conservancy is openly stating that they don't plan to drop the ball in those ways.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  "provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" I think finally terminates == final termination == permanently terminated
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    I actually did dig this a bit, and found this interesting text [1]: If you have distributed only v3-licensed programs, you may be eligible under v3 § 8 for automatic reinstatement of rights. You are eligible for automatic reinstatement when: you correct the violation and are not contacted by a copyright holder about the violation within sixty days after the correction, or you receive, from a copyright holder, your first-ever contact regarding a GPL violation, and you correct that violation within thirty days of receipt of copyright holder’s notice. In addition to these permanent reinstatements provided under v3, violators who voluntarily correct their violation also receive provisional permission to continue distributing until they receive contact from the copyright holder. If sixty days pass without contact, that reinstatement becomes permanent. Nonetheless, you should be prepared to cease distribution during those initial sixty days should you receive a termination notice from the copyright holder. So it seems that copyright holders can specifically revoke the rights if they discover a violation. However, it is not yet a fact that the violation has indeed happened, just because someone discovered an instance of AGPL software on an internet server. Modern developers assume that 'make code available to users' equals 'publishing it on the internet'. But there is no such requirement: you may just as well provide the code by request using email, floppy disk or pigeon mail. So if somebody mails Trump Group a request to provide source code, they may very well bide their time to process mail in the orderly manner and send the copy of the code to the person who requested that code. [1]: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide....

cure 5y ago

From TFA: To comply with this important FOSS license, Trump's Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live. If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated. That's how AGPLv3's cure provision works — no exceptions — even if you're a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a former POTUS.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
This language is wrong. Rights can be terminated only if the user does not cease violating the rights. If Trump's group will publish source codes 6 months after this 30 day period, they'll instantly undo this permanent termination.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >If Trump's group will publish source codes 6 months after this 30 day period, they'll instantly undo this permanent termination. The license reads more like that only happens on your first infraction AND if you rectify your violation within 30 days.

blendergeek 5y ago

Section 8 of the AGPL spells that out. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section8 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section8

not2b 5y ago

Read section 8 of the text. It says that once an infringer has been notified, they have 30 days to fix the problem or else their license is terminated. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html edit: ninja'd.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Sigh. I know AGPL license better than most people: my company develops software licensed under AGPL and I was the one who made the choice of license. The point is, license can't be "permanently terminated", only until the user ceases license violation.
- adrr 5y ago
  It will remedied by courts if the license isn’t satisfied and copyright infringement is still happening. Copyright holder can get an permanent injection against the offender against distributing the copyrighted work . This beyond the scope of the license though. This has happened to multiple companies violating GPL in the past. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bite-behind-it.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bi...
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. It sounds a lot like that the copyright holder has the power to permanently terminate a license even if the violation ceases.
- sparkie 5y ago
  That isn't true. The GPL licenses can be fully revoked if the license violator does not comply with the license after 30 days of being informed by the copyright holder of their violation. There is no "automatic renewal" unless the copyright holder does not respond. You can be permanently blocked from renewing the license if the copyright holder decides so. The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

erosenbe0 5y ago

That's an excellent question. Suppose some giant company infringes willfully for months and the license owner gives notice of permanent termination. Ten years later some subsidiary or disparate business unit that has no idea of what happened and has its own legal department uses the software again compliantly. Would a judge issue an injunction if licensor filed suit citing prior notice of permanent termination that was issued subject to past alleged violations?

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
License owner can't give notice of 'permanent termination', only until the user ceases the violation. Or it would not be a free license at all, violating basic freedom to run the software while not infinging any requirements.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > License owner can't give notice of 'permanent termination', only until the user ceases the violation This may require litigation to resolve. The rights are explicitly irrevocable with respect to the unmodified Program [1]. It is ambiguous, however, with respect to modifications. The "unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" confusingly implies a right to termination, though this comes into conflict with the § 2 irrevocability guarantee. Is there case law around this? [1] All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.