5 ms·

Choosing a License for Mailpile 1.0

30 points by HerraBRE 11y ago

davexunit 11y ago
Please choose the AGPL3+! A strong copyleft is important for ensuring that the users of a Mailpile instance actually receive the freedoms that you intended for them to have.
- jordigh 11y ago
  If they do copyright assignment, it also opens the possibility of selling exceptions, which may become a revenue stream. Reputable software like Qt and FFTW has gone this route. I'm gonna go donate so I can record my vote for AGPLv3.
  - HerraBRE 11y ago
    We already set fire to that bridge, most deliberately. It burns as we speak. :-) We've accepted various patches from people, all of which were under both the AGPLv3 and Apache licenses. We now have the choice of dropping one of the two licenses, by making all new code only available under one of them. But we can't apply new licenses or change the terms without reaching out to a growing number of folks and asking their permission...
    - jordigh 11y ago
      Oh well. I still prefer AGPLv3. I wonder why did you refuse to allow selling exceptions?
      - HerraBRE 11y ago
        Deliberately relinquishing power means we can't be corrupted. :-) If the backer community wants closed source versions to exist, we feel it should be on even footing based on a permissive license, not based on the whims of the founding team. Also, copyright assignments are a burden which makes people less likely to contribute in the first place. We don't want any such burdens, getting folks to take part is hard enough as it is.
        jordigh 11y ago
        Copyright assignments haven't really slowed down Emacs contributions, which has hundreds of contributors over the years. And for those who don't or can't do the assignment, well, there's a huge group of people who are doing Emacs packages outside of core. Emacs's extensibility helps here. As to corruption of power, you can include in the copyright assignment contract that you will only ever use the copyright to give specific individuals the same rights as they would have under some permissive software, except for the right to give it without copyleft to someone else. Allowing people to create non-free derivative works via a license exception is no worse than allowing people to create them via lack of copyleft. Not that it matters, like you say, but I feel very strongly about selling exceptions. It's no worse than free software without copyleft, and it opens up a revenue stream most projects decide to simply relinquish.
        the_why_of_y 11y ago
        There's a big difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit like the FSF asking for copyright assignment, and a for-profit corporation doing the same. The latter creates an uneven playing field, and other corporations are generally loath to assign their "IP" to a competitor, which tends to prevent the mutually beneficial collaboration that is the biggest advantage of successful open source projects.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Deliberately relinquishing power means we can't be corrupted. :-) Nicely done!
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
networked 11y ago
There seems to be an issue with different companies interpreting the AGPL differently. This question on StackOverflow and the discussion that follows explore the issue with regard to MongoDB and Neo4j: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6500925/agpl-license-question-re-neo4j http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6500925/agpl-license-ques.... If Mailpile goes with the AGPL I would urge them to offer a clarification as to which interpretation they have in mind. MongoDB's one seems more reasonable to me but I am not a lawyer and one's "reasonable" is not the same as "would stand up in court".
- woliveirajr 11y ago
  Once upon a time... my company had to choose some html editor to use in some system that would be used by the Judiciary system of the whole country. One good software was released under AGPL. Due to many discussions about understaing what were the consequences of that licensing, we gave up and used another one. After some while, we saw that the software was re-released under another license, but it was too late. Since they were in the beginning of the software, we would contribute a lot with it. AGPL was a no-go in that case. I would step back of it.
- bcantrill 11y ago
  Yes, strongly agreed. Without guidance from you about what constitutes a derived work, private entities will be left with the most extreme interpretation: anything that touches the program in any way is a derived work. If you select the AGPL, I strongly recommend doing what RethinkDB has done: be very, very explicit. From their FAQ[1]: We chose to release the client drivers under the Apache License v2.0 to remove any ambiguity as to the extent of the server license. You do not have to license any software that uses RethinkDB under AGPL, and are free to use any licensing mechanism of your choice. Absent this, expansive (and frankly, deranged) notions of a what constitutes a derived work will prevent AGPL-licensed software from going places that its authors likely did not want to prevent. [1] http://rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed http://rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  The intent is stated as:[0] The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: 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 corresponding to the program that it's running. If what's running there is your modified version of the program, the server's users must get the source code as you modified it. I'm assuming MongoDB's interpretation comes from Section 13: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if 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. Which is pretty clear: this only applies to modified works. Further, under Section 2: You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. where "convey" is defined in Section 0 as: To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. So there is an inconsistency between the stated intent of the AGPL, and what the license actually states. I'll ask FSF/RMS for clarification. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
tptacek 11y ago
AGPL3 maximizes options down the road. You can start AGPL3 and loosen it up over time. Lots of security projects have tried to go the other way, and the result has always been a mess: all the permissively licensed open source I've seen try to vector back towards GPL has created viable, hostile forks.
- stormbrew 11y ago
  Is it possible you haven't seen the same result the other way because it's pretty rare for that to happen in the first place? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Also, it seems like getting contributor agreement to license under a more permissive license than they contributed under might be rather more difficult. To use an extreme example, if you accept a patch from RMS it seems extraordinarily unlikely he'll ever agree to let you relicense his contribution as BSD. I guess if you have a really solid CLA...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Everything else aside: you fundamentally can't make code released under Apache more restrictive down the road, but you can make code released AGPL3 less restrictive. Permissive licensing is forever, restrictive licensing isn't.
    - EmanueleAina 11y ago
      Not sure about that, see my reply to your original message. As for "you fundamentally can't make code released under Apache more restrictive down the road", isn't that exactly what LibreOffice (LGPLv3) people do when they import patches from Apache OpenOffice (ALv2)?
    - jordigh 11y ago
      You have it exactly backwards. Without relicensing, you can't ever revoke the conditions of the GPL and allow proprietary things. You can always make non-copylefted code more restrictive, e.g. you can make it proprietary.
Sanddancer 11y ago
I'd argue Apache license here. Making mailpile AGPL will limit your contributors, limit the distribution of your product, and limit the people willing to commit to it. Because of the restrictions the AGPL places on software, I wouldn't use it for personal projects, and definitely wouldn't use it for any commercial projects. Putting mailpile as AGPL would just make me look at other webmail clients like horde; the compliance costs are just too high for a webmail client.
mlinksva 11y ago
Do you/significant Mailpile developers plan to actively enforce if you go with AGPLv3? If so, please state that publicly, ideally with a plan to do so (perhaps consult with an organization that does enforcement), and go for it. If not, may as well use Apache 2.
- HerraBRE 11y ago
  Uh, I'm certainly not going to go on record telling people they're welcome to ignore our license, no matter what that ends up being. But we're also not going to waste time drafting some sort of legal assault strategy at this point, we've got a long list of more productive things to do first! We'll deal with it if or when it comes up. Probably initially by asking nicely, following up with public shaming, and finally by seeking assistance from whatever orgs are available...

30 points by HerraBRE 11y ago

Please choose the AGPL3+! A strong copyleft is important for ensuring that the users of a Mailpile instance actually receive the freedoms that you intended for them to have.

jordigh 11y ago
If they do copyright assignment, it also opens the possibility of selling exceptions, which may become a revenue stream. Reputable software like Qt and FFTW has gone this route. I'm gonna go donate so I can record my vote for AGPLv3.
- HerraBRE 11y ago
  We already set fire to that bridge, most deliberately. It burns as we speak. :-) We've accepted various patches from people, all of which were under both the AGPLv3 and Apache licenses. We now have the choice of dropping one of the two licenses, by making all new code only available under one of them. But we can't apply new licenses or change the terms without reaching out to a growing number of folks and asking their permission...
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Oh well. I still prefer AGPLv3. I wonder why did you refuse to allow selling exceptions?
    - HerraBRE 11y ago
      Deliberately relinquishing power means we can't be corrupted. :-) If the backer community wants closed source versions to exist, we feel it should be on even footing based on a permissive license, not based on the whims of the founding team. Also, copyright assignments are a burden which makes people less likely to contribute in the first place. We don't want any such burdens, getting folks to take part is hard enough as it is.
      - jordigh 11y ago
        Copyright assignments haven't really slowed down Emacs contributions, which has hundreds of contributors over the years. And for those who don't or can't do the assignment, well, there's a huge group of people who are doing Emacs packages outside of core. Emacs's extensibility helps here. As to corruption of power, you can include in the copyright assignment contract that you will only ever use the copyright to give specific individuals the same rights as they would have under some permissive software, except for the right to give it without copyleft to someone else. Allowing people to create non-free derivative works via a license exception is no worse than allowing people to create them via lack of copyleft. Not that it matters, like you say, but I feel very strongly about selling exceptions. It's no worse than free software without copyleft, and it opens up a revenue stream most projects decide to simply relinquish.
        the_why_of_y 11y ago
        There's a big difference between a 501(c)(3) non-profit like the FSF asking for copyright assignment, and a for-profit corporation doing the same. The latter creates an uneven playing field, and other corporations are generally loath to assign their "IP" to a competitor, which tends to prevent the mutually beneficial collaboration that is the biggest advantage of successful open source projects.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Deliberately relinquishing power means we can't be corrupted. :-) Nicely done!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

networked 11y ago

There seems to be an issue with different companies interpreting the AGPL differently. This question on StackOverflow and the discussion that follows explore the issue with regard to MongoDB and Neo4j: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6500925/agpl-license-question-re-neo4j http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6500925/agpl-license-ques.... If Mailpile goes with the AGPL I would urge them to offer a clarification as to which interpretation they have in mind. MongoDB's one seems more reasonable to me but I am not a lawyer and one's "reasonable" is not the same as "would stand up in court".

woliveirajr 11y ago
Once upon a time... my company had to choose some html editor to use in some system that would be used by the Judiciary system of the whole country. One good software was released under AGPL. Due to many discussions about understaing what were the consequences of that licensing, we gave up and used another one. After some while, we saw that the software was re-released under another license, but it was too late. Since they were in the beginning of the software, we would contribute a lot with it. AGPL was a no-go in that case. I would step back of it.
bcantrill 11y ago
Yes, strongly agreed. Without guidance from you about what constitutes a derived work, private entities will be left with the most extreme interpretation: anything that touches the program in any way is a derived work. If you select the AGPL, I strongly recommend doing what RethinkDB has done: be very, very explicit. From their FAQ[1]: We chose to release the client drivers under the Apache License v2.0 to remove any ambiguity as to the extent of the server license. You do not have to license any software that uses RethinkDB under AGPL, and are free to use any licensing mechanism of your choice. Absent this, expansive (and frankly, deranged) notions of a what constitutes a derived work will prevent AGPL-licensed software from going places that its authors likely did not want to prevent. [1] http://rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed http://rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed
mikegerwitz 11y ago
The intent is stated as:[0] The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: 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 corresponding to the program that it's running. If what's running there is your modified version of the program, the server's users must get the source code as you modified it. I'm assuming MongoDB's interpretation comes from Section 13: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if 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. Which is pretty clear: this only applies to modified works. Further, under Section 2: You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. where "convey" is defined in Section 0 as: To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. So there is an inconsistency between the stated intent of the AGPL, and what the license actually states. I'll ask FSF/RMS for clarification. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

tptacek 11y ago

AGPL3 maximizes options down the road. You can start AGPL3 and loosen it up over time. Lots of security projects have tried to go the other way, and the result has always been a mess: all the permissively licensed open source I've seen try to vector back towards GPL has created viable, hostile forks.

stormbrew 11y ago
Is it possible you haven't seen the same result the other way because it's pretty rare for that to happen in the first place? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Also, it seems like getting contributor agreement to license under a more permissive license than they contributed under might be rather more difficult. To use an extreme example, if you accept a patch from RMS it seems extraordinarily unlikely he'll ever agree to let you relicense his contribution as BSD. I guess if you have a really solid CLA...
- tptacek 11y ago
  Everything else aside: you fundamentally can't make code released under Apache more restrictive down the road, but you can make code released AGPL3 less restrictive. Permissive licensing is forever, restrictive licensing isn't.
  - EmanueleAina 11y ago
    Not sure about that, see my reply to your original message. As for "you fundamentally can't make code released under Apache more restrictive down the road", isn't that exactly what LibreOffice (LGPLv3) people do when they import patches from Apache OpenOffice (ALv2)?
  - jordigh 11y ago
    You have it exactly backwards. Without relicensing, you can't ever revoke the conditions of the GPL and allow proprietary things. You can always make non-copylefted code more restrictive, e.g. you can make it proprietary.

Sanddancer 11y ago

I'd argue Apache license here. Making mailpile AGPL will limit your contributors, limit the distribution of your product, and limit the people willing to commit to it. Because of the restrictions the AGPL places on software, I wouldn't use it for personal projects, and definitely wouldn't use it for any commercial projects. Putting mailpile as AGPL would just make me look at other webmail clients like horde; the compliance costs are just too high for a webmail client.

mlinksva 11y ago

Do you/significant Mailpile developers plan to actively enforce if you go with AGPLv3? If so, please state that publicly, ideally with a plan to do so (perhaps consult with an organization that does enforcement), and go for it. If not, may as well use Apache 2.

HerraBRE 11y ago
Uh, I'm certainly not going to go on record telling people they're welcome to ignore our license, no matter what that ends up being. But we're also not going to waste time drafting some sort of legal assault strategy at this point, we've got a long list of more productive things to do first! We'll deal with it if or when it comes up. Probably initially by asking nicely, following up with public shaming, and finally by seeking assistance from whatever orgs are available...