4 ms·

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 som

by 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.
      - tsuraan 13y ago
        No, not in the same way at all. GPLv2 was strictly a distribution agreement. If you want to distribute a GPLv2-derived work, you must offer its source to anybody who gets the binary. That's using copyright law; you would normally have no right at all to distribute something copyrighted by somebody else, but they've given you permission to distribute so long as you agree to their distribution terms. AGPL/GPLv3 are usage licenses: it's not a simple matter of agreeing to a license when you're distributing the derived work, but instead you must follow the license whenever you're using the work. AGPL and GPLv3 are completely different beasts from GPLv2; they may fit your needs better, but they aren't the same thing at all.
  - richardfontana 13y ago

by codeflo 13y ago

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.
    - tsuraan 13y ago
      No, not in the same way at all. GPLv2 was strictly a distribution agreement. If you want to distribute a GPLv2-derived work, you must offer its source to anybody who gets the binary. That's using copyright law; you would normally have no right at all to distribute something copyrighted by somebody else, but they've given you permission to distribute so long as you agree to their distribution terms. AGPL/GPLv3 are usage licenses: it's not a simple matter of agreeing to a license when you're distributing the derived work, but instead you must follow the license whenever you're using the work. AGPL and GPLv3 are completely different beasts from GPLv2; they may fit your needs better, but they aren't the same thing at all.
- richardfontana 13y ago