4 ms·

Let me clarify, I don't think anyone's projects that are web facing actually use their testing library to perform the tasks. So for all intents and purposes th

by mattsah 14y ago

Let me clarify, I don't think anyone's projects that are web facing actually use their testing library to perform the tasks. So for all intents and purposes their projects as they are "distributed" over a network are not linking to it even though it may exist in their source tree. The only exception to this would be if the project is actually for testing, like say an online service that tests your code. Also any private non-distributed use does not require source distribution.

RyanZAG 14y ago
Why is it AGPL then and not GPL? This seems to just create a minefield in the strange event when some test function needs to be exposed to the public for some reason. While this probably won't occur, if it does, suddenly the whole source needs to be released. There does not seem to be any benefit to making this AGPL as it as the source release on use feature of AGPL is not intended to be used during regular usage. Change it to GPL - it makes no practical difference, yet increases potential usage of the library at no cost.
- mattsah 14y ago
  GPL only applies to binary software. PHP is not compiled and linked.
  - RyanZAG 14y ago
    You're correct... I find this completely insane though! Everything is just 0s and 1s that are transformed and ultimately can be passed through the logic gates on a CPU to do math. Whether code is compiled or interpreted has no effect on the end goal - such as an instruction to the CPU to add two numbers. Copyright is such a mess.
    - 0x0 14y ago
      FWIW, I don't think that is correct. See comment above.
    - mattsah 14y ago
      I tried to clarify above. What I am trying to get at is that traditionally web software is not distributed at all. That is, the software itself is never provided to the user and the user just interfaces with it externally. The point regarding binary stuff was as it applies to distributed projects because if PHP or any other interpreted language is "distributed" in a traditional sense, it is already in source code. I feel as though the confusion here is because people are looking at the initial distribution to other developers and thinking that's it. But that distribution completely allows for a developer to "link to it", modify it, and keep it behind closed doors if it is never distributed. And it isn't if it's sitting behind a web server... someone is just interfacing with it through a completely open protocol. The point of the AGPL is to say that someone who is using a program, regardless of the fact that the program itself is never being distributed to them, has a right to get the source.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - 0x0 14y ago
    That sounds like a very dangerous opinion to present as if it were a fact. Is it not more a matter of whether a piece of software is a "derivative" of the GPL software? Looks like even the FSF does not have a clear black&white answer to this question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation: "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" I remember the mysql guys used to claim that any software connecting to a mysql server would be "infected" with GPL, at least if it was written to depend on the official mysql client libraries, even if the software in question didn't actually copy a single character from any mysql distributions. (?)
    - mattsah 14y ago
      I misspoke, what I should have said is that GPL's distribution clause only pertains to binary software. clearly if you provide someone a piece of GPL software (such as a perl script to do something useful on their server) it's GPL so it's free software and it's already source code. The point is that the Affero clause is very clearly targets software that is being used over a network connection rather than being distributed. It is not possible in the least that the "semantics of the communication are intimate enough" to qualify -- the semantics of the communication are HTTP, an open standard used for extremely varied purposes. I'm quite sure the MySQL guys are simply wrong on that, but even if they're not, it's clearly not the case for HTTP.
      - 0x0 14y ago
        Well, the question here is if the PHP code someone wrote to power a public web site would be considered to be a partly derivative or combined work of the AGPL testing library, wouldn't it? Just a leftover test function inside the main app referencing this library would probably be enough to consider it a derivative or combined work, no? (Not sure how HTTP comes into play regarding the linking and combining of a project and this AGPL library?) I think the terms are difficult to understand. In the general case who knows what a library author intended or how think they understand the license?? (Also, claiming GPL only pertains to binary software sounds really quite imprecise too. Just because you receive source code does not mean you can use it or distribute it in any way you see fit. You would still need to abide by whatever license accompanies the non-binary software)

by mattsah 14y ago

RyanZAG 14y ago

Why is it AGPL then and not GPL? This seems to just create a minefield in the strange event when some test function needs to be exposed to the public for some reason. While this probably won't occur, if it does, suddenly the whole source needs to be released. There does not seem to be any benefit to making this AGPL as it as the source release on use feature of AGPL is not intended to be used during regular usage. Change it to GPL - it makes no practical difference, yet increases potential usage of the library at no cost.

mattsah 14y ago
GPL only applies to binary software. PHP is not compiled and linked.
- RyanZAG 14y ago
  You're correct... I find this completely insane though! Everything is just 0s and 1s that are transformed and ultimately can be passed through the logic gates on a CPU to do math. Whether code is compiled or interpreted has no effect on the end goal - such as an instruction to the CPU to add two numbers. Copyright is such a mess.
  - 0x0 14y ago
    FWIW, I don't think that is correct. See comment above.
  - mattsah 14y ago
    I tried to clarify above. What I am trying to get at is that traditionally web software is not distributed at all. That is, the software itself is never provided to the user and the user just interfaces with it externally. The point regarding binary stuff was as it applies to distributed projects because if PHP or any other interpreted language is "distributed" in a traditional sense, it is already in source code. I feel as though the confusion here is because people are looking at the initial distribution to other developers and thinking that's it. But that distribution completely allows for a developer to "link to it", modify it, and keep it behind closed doors if it is never distributed. And it isn't if it's sitting behind a web server... someone is just interfacing with it through a completely open protocol. The point of the AGPL is to say that someone who is using a program, regardless of the fact that the program itself is never being distributed to them, has a right to get the source.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- 0x0 14y ago
  That sounds like a very dangerous opinion to present as if it were a fact. Is it not more a matter of whether a piece of software is a "derivative" of the GPL software? Looks like even the FSF does not have a clear black&white answer to this question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation: "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" I remember the mysql guys used to claim that any software connecting to a mysql server would be "infected" with GPL, at least if it was written to depend on the official mysql client libraries, even if the software in question didn't actually copy a single character from any mysql distributions. (?)
  - mattsah 14y ago
    I misspoke, what I should have said is that GPL's distribution clause only pertains to binary software. clearly if you provide someone a piece of GPL software (such as a perl script to do something useful on their server) it's GPL so it's free software and it's already source code. The point is that the Affero clause is very clearly targets software that is being used over a network connection rather than being distributed. It is not possible in the least that the "semantics of the communication are intimate enough" to qualify -- the semantics of the communication are HTTP, an open standard used for extremely varied purposes. I'm quite sure the MySQL guys are simply wrong on that, but even if they're not, it's clearly not the case for HTTP.
    - 0x0 14y ago
      Well, the question here is if the PHP code someone wrote to power a public web site would be considered to be a partly derivative or combined work of the AGPL testing library, wouldn't it? Just a leftover test function inside the main app referencing this library would probably be enough to consider it a derivative or combined work, no? (Not sure how HTTP comes into play regarding the linking and combining of a project and this AGPL library?) I think the terms are difficult to understand. In the general case who knows what a library author intended or how think they understand the license?? (Also, claiming GPL only pertains to binary software sounds really quite imprecise too. Just because you receive source code does not mean you can use it or distribute it in any way you see fit. You would still need to abide by whatever license accompanies the non-binary software)