5 ms·

There seems to be an issue with different companies interpreting the AGPL differently. This question on StackOverflow and the discussion that follows explore th

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
- networked 11y ago
  >I'll ask FSF/RMS for clarification. Thanks. Could you post the clarification here once you get it?
  - mikegerwitz 11y ago
    Will do. It might be a day or two.
    - mikegerwitz 11y ago
      I'm pleased to say that this matter has been resolved unambiguously. Recall above that the ambiguity I pointed out was between the description of the license[0] and Section 13 of the license itself[1]. RMS has updated the former (see my above quote for the original) to read: > 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 a modified 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 modified version running there.[0] Here is the applicable part of RMS' reply to me: > Section 13 in the AGPL states the real conditions. The > why-affero-gpl.html has an error. > > It is a general principle that, if the license words are clear, they > override explanation elsewhere. > > As regards the philosophical question, I don't remember any more > why we decided 8 years ago to apply section 13 only to modified > versions. I don't see any strong reason in favor of either choice. > > I corrected the page why-affero-gpl.html. Thanks for reporting the > error. Hope that helps. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html
greggyb 11y ago
To the siblings suggesting that the publishers clarify their interpretation of the license, this is not how copyright law works. You do not get to define the interpretation of the license you utilize. A court will decide that if/when an issue ever goes to trial. At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, and as such interpretation would be external to the license, would likely make no impact on a third party's decision to use or not use the software. If the goal is to eliminate an ambiguity in the license, the solution is another license, not the ambiguous license plus a promise.
- amyjess 11y ago
  > At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, Actually, promissory estoppel is a thing: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Est...
  - greggyb 11y ago
    Cool. I did not realize that. I do think that the court case would just devolve to interpreting the circumstances described in the promise. At the end of the day, my point is that a contract or a promise is only interpreted by the court. One cannot make legal opinion in the form of a contract or a promise.

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

networked 11y ago
>I'll ask FSF/RMS for clarification. Thanks. Could you post the clarification here once you get it?
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  Will do. It might be a day or two.
  - mikegerwitz 11y ago
    I'm pleased to say that this matter has been resolved unambiguously. Recall above that the ambiguity I pointed out was between the description of the license[0] and Section 13 of the license itself[1]. RMS has updated the former (see my above quote for the original) to read: > 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 a modified 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 modified version running there.[0] Here is the applicable part of RMS' reply to me: > Section 13 in the AGPL states the real conditions. The > why-affero-gpl.html has an error. > > It is a general principle that, if the license words are clear, they > override explanation elsewhere. > > As regards the philosophical question, I don't remember any more > why we decided 8 years ago to apply section 13 only to modified > versions. I don't see any strong reason in favor of either choice. > > I corrected the page why-affero-gpl.html. Thanks for reporting the > error. Hope that helps. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html

greggyb 11y ago

To the siblings suggesting that the publishers clarify their interpretation of the license, this is not how copyright law works. You do not get to define the interpretation of the license you utilize. A court will decide that if/when an issue ever goes to trial. At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, and as such interpretation would be external to the license, would likely make no impact on a third party's decision to use or not use the software. If the goal is to eliminate an ambiguity in the license, the solution is another license, not the ambiguous license plus a promise.

amyjess 11y ago
> At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, Actually, promissory estoppel is a thing: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Est...
- greggyb 11y ago
  Cool. I did not realize that. I do think that the court case would just devolve to interpreting the circumstances described in the promise. At the end of the day, my point is that a contract or a promise is only interpreted by the court. One cannot make legal opinion in the form of a contract or a promise.