5 ms·

> All while endorsing the Affero GPL, a license that doesn't even allow users full control over their own servers. Thanks for mentioning the Affero version, I'

by NAFV_P 13y ago

> All while endorsing the Affero GPL, a license that doesn't even allow users full control over their own servers. Thanks for mentioning the Affero version, I'd never come across it before. In what manner does this licence affect the users' control?

codeflo 13y ago
The FSF's FAQ on the Affero GPL explains it best: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html Quote: If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of that program.
- belorn 13y ago
  Please do not leave out context: if you run the program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code If you do not let other users communicate with the program, you do not need to do anything. For the AGPL to go into effect, you first have to make the active choice in making your computer and program public accessible for others.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  Thanks for replying, but it seems to me that under AGPL you relinquish full control of the distribution of the source, which is different than having partial control of the operation of your own server. I'm not disagreeing with you as of this moment as I don't think I have an innate understanding of the issue. May I draw your attention to a quote from the webpage in question: "If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of that program. That is good, but having this source code does not give them control over the computing done on that server. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways."
  - codeflo 13y ago
    I didn't mean that the AGPL gives any specific person control of your server. What I meant is that you're forced (by the license) to configure your server in such a way that you "prominently" (exact word from the license) offer a way to download the source. In essence, the way I understand it: Say you're running your homepage on "GNUpache", a hypothetical AGPL Apache clone. Then you must have a "download source" button somewhere on your homepage. (This button might point to the official distribution if the version you're running is entirely unpatched and only uses standard plugins. If you have any custom plugin, for example to integrate with your in-house authentication server, you must offer the code for that plugin as well.) You might disagree on whether that violates your freedoms. But note that previously (with the standard GPL, and also standard copyright law), you were not even required to advertise what kind of webserver you're running.
    - NAFV_P 13y ago
      > In essence, the way I understand it: Say you're running your homepage on "GNUpache", a hypothetical AGPL Apache clone. Then you must have a "download source" button somewhere on your homepage. (This button might point to the official distribution if the version you're running is entirely unpatched and only uses standard plugins. If you have any custom plugin, for example to integrate with your in-house authentication server, you must offer the code for that plugin as well.) Well, I suppose if you don't want to include a "download source" button on your webpage but you are required to do so, then that violates your freedom of use.
      - drdaeman 13y ago
        Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob.
        NAFV_P 13y ago
        > Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob. The compatibility of licences seems to be where most of the issues occur. I've never heard a high-court judge mull this over, have you? BTW Wow, another self-confessed code-monkey. Nice to meet you drdaeman.
pgeorgi 13y ago
If you use the software (ie install it on your own server) and make it accessible to third parties, you must make the sources available to them. That was quite a surprise for some after they got used to slapping GPLv2 software on a server and making it SaaS.
- teddyh 13y ago
  Allow me to correct a slight but significant misconception. If you get a program licensed under the AGPL, and it already has a facility for users of the program (including remote web users) to get the source code, you cannot remove this feature. Note well that this does not force you to implement this feature if it does not already exist.
  - richardfontana 13y ago
    I think you're speaking of the original AGPL, AGPLv1, which said: "If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work." This formulation was criticized even by some who were otherwise sympathetic to the broader policy goal. AGPLv3, which is the AGPL that people generally understand to be 'the AGPL' today, says: "[I]f you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software." Note the absence of any sort of 'nonremovability of features' implementation of the policy. EDIT: Just an additional point: The current view of RMS and by extension the FSF is that a mere distributor of a version which the distributor has modified must make an effort to have the distributed version comply with that requirement if it did not do so previously (for example, by ensuring that the web application presents some sort of customary offer for source code, though that might not be best practice). There's still no 'feature nonremovability' requirement though. This ended (if not resolved) an argument that had developed last year between me and Bradley Kuhn over whether AGPLv3's special requirement imposed any conditions on mere distributors (my view had been that it did not). For context, I was a lawyer for the FSF when the GPLv3 license family was being drafted and among other things worked on the drafting of AGPLv3 (as did RMS and Bradley). (slight further edit)

by NAFV_P 13y ago

codeflo 13y ago

The FSF's FAQ on the Affero GPL explains it best: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html Quote: If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of that program.

belorn 13y ago
Please do not leave out context: if you run the program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code If you do not let other users communicate with the program, you do not need to do anything. For the AGPL to go into effect, you first have to make the active choice in making your computer and program public accessible for others.
NAFV_P 13y ago
Thanks for replying, but it seems to me that under AGPL you relinquish full control of the distribution of the source, which is different than having partial control of the operation of your own server. I'm not disagreeing with you as of this moment as I don't think I have an innate understanding of the issue. May I draw your attention to a quote from the webpage in question: "If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of that program. That is good, but having this source code does not give them control over the computing done on that server. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways."
- codeflo 13y ago
  I didn't mean that the AGPL gives any specific person control of your server. What I meant is that you're forced (by the license) to configure your server in such a way that you "prominently" (exact word from the license) offer a way to download the source. In essence, the way I understand it: Say you're running your homepage on "GNUpache", a hypothetical AGPL Apache clone. Then you must have a "download source" button somewhere on your homepage. (This button might point to the official distribution if the version you're running is entirely unpatched and only uses standard plugins. If you have any custom plugin, for example to integrate with your in-house authentication server, you must offer the code for that plugin as well.) You might disagree on whether that violates your freedoms. But note that previously (with the standard GPL, and also standard copyright law), you were not even required to advertise what kind of webserver you're running.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    > In essence, the way I understand it: Say you're running your homepage on "GNUpache", a hypothetical AGPL Apache clone. Then you must have a "download source" button somewhere on your homepage. (This button might point to the official distribution if the version you're running is entirely unpatched and only uses standard plugins. If you have any custom plugin, for example to integrate with your in-house authentication server, you must offer the code for that plugin as well.) Well, I suppose if you don't want to include a "download source" button on your webpage but you are required to do so, then that violates your freedom of use.
    - drdaeman 13y ago
      Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob.
      - NAFV_P 13y ago
        > Exactly in a same way that GPL "violates" freedom of those not willing to provide a source for a binary blob. The compatibility of licences seems to be where most of the issues occur. I've never heard a high-court judge mull this over, have you? BTW Wow, another self-confessed code-monkey. Nice to meet you drdaeman.

pgeorgi 13y ago

If you use the software (ie install it on your own server) and make it accessible to third parties, you must make the sources available to them. That was quite a surprise for some after they got used to slapping GPLv2 software on a server and making it SaaS.

teddyh 13y ago
Allow me to correct a slight but significant misconception. If you get a program licensed under the AGPL, and it already has a facility for users of the program (including remote web users) to get the source code, you cannot remove this feature. Note well that this does not force you to implement this feature if it does not already exist.
- richardfontana 13y ago
  I think you're speaking of the original AGPL, AGPLv1, which said: "If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work." This formulation was criticized even by some who were otherwise sympathetic to the broader policy goal. AGPLv3, which is the AGPL that people generally understand to be 'the AGPL' today, says: "[I]f you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software." Note the absence of any sort of 'nonremovability of features' implementation of the policy. EDIT: Just an additional point: The current view of RMS and by extension the FSF is that a mere distributor of a version which the distributor has modified must make an effort to have the distributed version comply with that requirement if it did not do so previously (for example, by ensuring that the web application presents some sort of customary offer for source code, though that might not be best practice). There's still no 'feature nonremovability' requirement though. This ended (if not resolved) an argument that had developed last year between me and Bradley Kuhn over whether AGPLv3's special requirement imposed any conditions on mere distributors (my view had been that it did not). For context, I was a lawyer for the FSF when the GPLv3 license family was being drafted and among other things worked on the drafting of AGPLv3 (as did RMS and Bradley). (slight further edit)