gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion

GPL License with clause for Web use?

I am looking for a license that is like the GPL, but also includes any
form of embedded web use (server side, or flash-like client side) as a
form of distribution.

That is, any user of the said web service must also be given access to
the source code of that web service (along with modification rights, etc...)

I looked at the Alfero GPL, though I'm not entirely sure that is exactly
what I mean (seciont 2d is not clearly what I mean, I think).

Is there such a license in common use?

--

-- 
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/

Sign: Please digitally sign your emails.
Encrypt: I'm also happy to receive encrypted mail.

I am looking for a license that is like the GPL, but also includes any
form of embedded web use (server side, or flash-like client side) as a
form of distribution.

That is, any user of the said web service must also be given access to
the source code of that web service (along with modification rights, etc...)

I looked at the Alfero GPL, though I'm not entirely sure that is exactly

(Continue reading)

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 19 Nov 16:10

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa@...> writes:
> I am looking for a license that is like the GPL, but also includes any
> form of embedded web use (server side, or flash-like client side) as a
> form of distribution.

You've come at the right time!

As mentioned earlier, the GNU Affero GPL is currently being drafted and the
2nd draft has just gone online.  If you have comments about what the licence
should say, you can submit them online (javascript required, IICR) or by
email:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd2-guide.html

> I looked at the Alfero GPL, though I'm not entirely sure that is exactly
> what I mean (seciont 2d is not clearly what I mean, I think).

Maybe the draft of the upcoming version is clearer, or maybe you can help
tell FSF what it should say or where it's unclear.

> Is there such a license in common use?

Not in common use, no.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

(Continue reading)

headers

Matt Lee | 19 Nov 16:14

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

> Maybe the draft of the upcoming version is clearer, or maybe you can help
> tell FSF what it should say or where it's unclear.

the final draft of AGPL is due out in the next couple of days :)

--

-- 
Matt Lee <mattl@...>
Campaigns Manager

Free Software Foundation   | Phone: (617)542-5942 | http://badvista.org
51 Franklin Street, 5th Fl.| Fax:   (617)542-2652 | http://www.gnu.org
Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA  | GPG:   9D7E8233      | http://www.fsf.org

headers

MJ Ray | 19 Nov 17:39

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa@...> wrote: [...]
> That is, any user of the said web service must also be given access to
> the source code of that web service (along with modification rights, etc...)
[...]

I think it can't be done completely in free software, sorry.  All you
can do is make it illegal not to publish some of the source, but you
need to be careful about how that's done (unlike the Affero bug) else
it won't be free software in a meaningful way.

Application Service Provider-targetted licences are a massive
distraction from the real problem - if someone evil(?) is using your
software, the version they offer for download will not be the version
they are running anyway, or they'll hide their innovations in an
external program that the ASP'd one communicates with and they won't
have to distribute, or any of the other 1001 loopholes in ASP clauses.
Really, the only way to ensure sharing is to ensure user control of
the ASP provider.

I'd concentrate on running faster and rallying help to fewer
recognisably-free banners.  It is very disappointing that FSF has been
causing license proliferation recently - don't encourage it! It's
definitely not fun for hackers!

Best wishes,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

(Continue reading)

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 19 Nov 17:47

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> It is very disappointing that FSF has been
> causing license proliferation recently - don't encourage it! It's
> definitely not fun for hackers!

What's the problem?

Licence proliferation can be a pain, but in this case there is no
incompatibility and the additional complexity is only two paragraphs.

The number of licences in existence hasn't even changed.  The Affero licence
already existed with GNU endorsement.  Superceding it with the GNU Affero
GPL does nothing other than arguably increasing that endorsement.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

MJ Ray | 19 Nov 17:59

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > It is very disappointing that FSF has been
> > causing license proliferation recently - don't encourage it! It's
> > definitely not fun for hackers!
>
> What's the problem?
[...]
> The number of licences in existence hasn't even changed.

So we all imagined the creation of the FDL, SFDL, Wiki licence, GPLv3,
AGPLv3 and so on?  Did they exist already, but were somehow cloaked
from our perception?  I doubt it.

Maybe the GPLv3 was necessary (but it still would have been nicer to
have a more hacker-friendly one), but the rest seem like simple
proliferation, with the Free Software Foundation either adopting new
licences or straying into what FSF itself claims isn't software.  Can
US NPOs act ultra vires without penalty?  Sure seems like it.

> The Affero licence
> already existed with GNU endorsement.  Superceding it with the GNU Affero
> GPL does nothing other than arguably increasing that endorsement.

It's a shame that that endorsement has been increased when the Affero
licence should have been allowed to die out.  It's an even bigger
shame that FSF issues press releases spinning it as a cooperation
licence.  People should cooperate voluntarily - you can adjust the
balance and encourage it, but forced sharing is not true cooperation,
because it breaks the principle of voluntary membership.

(Continue reading)

headers

list | 20 Nov 18:30

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Am Monday, dem 19. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:

> People should cooperate voluntarily - you can adjust the
> balance and encourage it, but forced sharing is not true cooperation,
> because it breaks the principle of voluntary membership.

So, you are against "Copyleft" licenses in general?
The AGPL is imho just an extended Copyleft.

--

-- 
AKFoerster

headers

Alex Hudson | 20 Nov 19:18

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 18:30 +0100, list@... wrote:
> Am Monday, dem 19. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:
> > People should cooperate voluntarily - you can adjust the
> > balance and encourage it, but forced sharing is not true cooperation,
> > because it breaks the principle of voluntary membership.
> 
> So, you are against "Copyleft" licenses in general?
> The AGPL is imho just an extended Copyleft.

That's not his point as I understand it.

If the GPL were like the AGPL in that regard, it would mean that if you
allowed other people to use your software - for example, if you run an
internet cafe - you would be forced to provide the source code to those
visitors, even though you didn't give them a copy of the software.

The choice of whether or not to give someone a copy of free software was
always inherent in the GPL, the AGPL removes that choice to some extent.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 10:48

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> The choice of whether or not to give someone a copy of free software was
> always inherent in the GPL, the AGPL removes that choice to some extent.

The GPL is designed to allowed private use of modified versions without
requiring source distribution.

The debated point is whether or not giving others public access to run the
software on your computer is a private use of the software.

If a developer thinks that's a private use that should not require making
the source available, they should use the plain GPL (or the AGPL and just
not add any "get the source" feature).  If a developer thinks that's a
public use, they can use the AGPL.

The two licences are compatible, so people can make this decision without
creating any legal barriers to sharing or collaboration.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 11:03

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:48 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > The choice of whether or not to give someone a copy of free software was
> > always inherent in the GPL, the AGPL removes that choice to some extent.
> 
> The GPL is designed to allowed private use of modified versions without
> requiring source distribution.

I disagree with that. The GPL allows *any* use: it makes no distinction
between public and private use, and no source distribution is required
in either case (e.g., my example of the internet cafe). It only kicks in
when you give someone a copy of the software.

The AGPL changes that; it says you're entitled to a copy of the source
when you haven't been given a copy of the software. In theory it applies
to "network users", in practice it applies to everyone (there is no
"private").

I think "public use" versus "private use" is a complete red herring, to
be honest. Neither license talks in those terms, and neither works in
that way as far as I can see.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 11:12

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> The AGPL changes that; [...] (there is no "private").

Of course there is: I download the source code, I modify it, and I run it.
That's still private.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 11:30

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:12 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > The AGPL changes that; [...] (there is no "private").
> 
> Of course there is: I download the source code, I modify it, and I run it.
> That's still private.

The point is that it's not a distinction the license draws. If you run
it in such a way that other people have access to it - your housemates,
your co-workers, etc - they're entitled to source. If you run it on your
web hosting account, other people are entitled to source. 

If you want to avoid that liability - e.g., you have limited bandwidth
on your hosting account - you have to put in strict access controls
which prevent anyone except you from accessing the software. Hopefully
you have the skills to do that and it doesn't interfere with the running
of the software ;)

If the AGPL really did have a concept of "private", those scenarios
simply wouldn't come up, but it doesn't. 

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 14:27

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> If you run it in such a way that other people have access to it - your
> housemates, your co-workers, etc - they're entitled to source.

> If the AGPL really did have a concept of "private", those scenarios
> simply wouldn't come up, but it doesn't. 

I think the answer is that it doesn't have to go in the licence because
copyright laws have limits that exclude private use from needing copyright
permission anyway.

This depends on local copyright law though, so I'm out of my depth.

> If you want to avoid that liability - e.g., you have limited bandwidth
> on your hosting account - you have to put in strict access controls
> which prevent anyone except you from accessing the software. Hopefully
> you have the skills to do that and it doesn't interfere with the running
> of the software ;)

But this is the same for the GPL.

What if I made a modified version and uploaded it to my home dir on my
remote box with the read permission is set to 7.  Oops.

IMO, there would have to be some other pretty extreme circumstances involved
for a judge to even consider hearing this case.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux

(Continue reading)

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 12:03

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote: [...]
> The debated point is whether or not giving others public access to run the
> software on your computer is a private use of the software.

I'm not sure it is.  I think the debated point is whether free
software can be required to have a particular feature.

In the past, it's been a "show terms" feature, which seems pretty
basic attribution info and can be tolerated in free software.

In this AGPL case, it's a "download source" feature, which I think
goes beyond attribution and so beyond acceptability.

In future cases, a "comply to standard X" feature requirement will
almost certainly be tried: we have already seen programs under such
terms and usually rejected them as not free software.

Why should AGPL be on the acceptable side of the line?
Because an FSF board member once liked that feature requirement?

> If a developer thinks that's a private use that should not require making
> the source available, they should use the plain GPL (or the AGPL and just
> not add any "get the source" feature).  If a developer thinks that's a
> public use, they can use the AGPL.

Surely that choice is only open to initial developers?  Trying to be a
good cooperator, I'd like to avoid reinventing wheels these days, but
if all the wheels have been made AGPL, we're doomed to repeat work.

> The two licences are compatible, so people can make this decision without

(Continue reading)

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 12:14

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03:

The two licences are compatible, so people can make this decision without creating any legal barriers to sharing or collaboration.
Huh? Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL? I doubt it.

And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by the GPL.

The AGPL seems to give an escape route from free/GPL to non-free software that wasn't present with GPLv2/AGPLv2, killing one of GNU GPL's unique selling points.

I think AGPL is nuts, worse the the GFDL mess.

Not everything from the FSFis good.

Sam

<div>
* MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03:
<blockquote cite="mid:47441066.dtzYLiwdU670mFYS%25mjr@..." type="cite">
<br><blockquote type="cite">
    The two licences are compatible, so people can make this decision without
creating any legal barriers to sharing or collaboration.

  </blockquote>

Huh?  Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into
a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL?  I doubt it.  
</blockquote>
And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL
you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by
the GPL.<br><blockquote cite="mid:47441066.dtzYLiwdU670mFYS%25mjr@..." type="cite">
  The
AGPL seems to give an escape route from free/GPL to non-free software
that wasn't present with GPLv2/AGPLv2, killing one of GNU GPL's unique
selling points.

</blockquote>
I think AGPL is nuts, worse the the GFDL mess.<br><br>
Not everything from the FSFis good.<br><br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 12:27

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:14 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03: 
> > Huh?  Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into
> > a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL?  I doubt it.  
>
> And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL
> you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden
> by the GPL.

Actually, no - the extra restrictions of the AGPL are allowed, because
GPLv3 gives the AGPL special treatment.

The combination of the two is effectively AGPL, but you can sever the
GPL pieces and drop the AGPL.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 15:28

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 21/11/07 11:27:

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:14 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
* MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03:
Huh? Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL? I doubt it.
And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by the GPL.
Actually, no - the extra restrictions of the AGPL are allowed, because GPLv3 gives the AGPL special treatment. The combination of the two is effectively AGPL, but you can sever the GPL pieces and drop the AGPL.

Yeah, I'm still not fully into GPL3 mode, I was thinking GPL 2.

Anyway, AGPL is on my list of never to use licenses, which results (as M J Ray says) in lots of re-invented wheels.

In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).

- thus it is prudent for me now to stick to GPL2 only.

I hadn't realised that, so thanks to all for helping me realise this.

Sam

<div>
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 21/11/07 11:27:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195644470.3022.19.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:14 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    * MJ Ray wrote, On 21/11/07 11:03: 

    <blockquote type="cite">
      Huh?  Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into
a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL?  I doubt it.  

    </blockquote>
    And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL
you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden
by the GPL.

  </blockquote>

Actually, no - the extra restrictions of the AGPL are allowed, because
GPLv3 gives the AGPL special treatment.

The combination of the two is effectively AGPL, but you can sever the
GPL pieces and drop the AGPL.

</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, I'm still not fully into GPL3 mode, I was thinking GPL 2.<br><br>
Anyway, AGPL is on my list of never to use licenses, which results (as
M J Ray says) in lots of re-invented wheels.<br><br>
In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from
benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).<br><br>
- thus it is prudent for me now to stick to GPL2 only.<br><br>
I hadn't realised that, so thanks to all for helping me realise this.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 15:47

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:28 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might
> promote their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from
> benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
> 
> - thus it is prudent for me now to stick to GPL2 only.

Hm, I hope you think about that carefully :)

There are a few benefits to GPLv3, like the patent stuff and broader
"compatibility", that are well worth having.

The AGPL stuff sticks in my throat a bit, but I think in practice it's
not going to be a huge problem because AGPL won't be that widely used.
Poor excuse, but giveth and taketh - being able to re-use Apache
licensed software is the giveth :)

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 15:49

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Sam Liddicott <sam@...> wrote:
> In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
> their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
> in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).

Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
bytes and developer-time on the licences.
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 21 Nov 16:08

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sam Liddicott <sam@...> wrote:
> > In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
> > their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
> > in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
> 
> Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> bytes and developer-time on the licences.

Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
Why bothering about copyleft at all?

I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
not to use the GPLv3, and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
*claim* will or will not use?

There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
people think it's a good license worth using, at least they are not so
vocal about their opinions but just *act*.

Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
costs if you have really nothing to say.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 16:21

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:08:

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
Indeed. Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some bytes and developer-time on the licences.
Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain? Why bothering about copyleft at all?

The point (well made) was that these other licenses (as with public domain) allow others to take do not allow us to take back on terms that suit us.

I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I don't seek excuses not to use the GPLv3,

Presumably why you have been moderately silent on this topic up till now, the status quo suits you.

But until today I was seeking excuses why and how my meager but interesting kernel contributions (under an assumed name) SHOULD be GPL2 or later.
Now I'm glad the kernel won't be GPL3, because I *use* it, I release custom kernels on embedded hardware. AGPL would suck, I don't want to be able to get near it.

and frankly why should I care what you or Sam *claim* will or will not use?

this *IS* troll talk. I don't care if you care, I don't even recognize your name.

There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these people think it's a good license worth using,

if they did think. If they noticed.

at least they are not so vocal about their opinions but just *act*.

I'm vocal because I just noticed.

Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all costs if you have really nothing to say.

Not every comment on this list is designed to be interesting to you.

If all you have to say is how boring we are, feel free not to say it.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:08:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@...">&lt;sam@...&gt;</a> wrote:

    <blockquote type="cite">
      In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).

    </blockquote>
    Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
bytes and developer-time on the licences.

  </blockquote>

Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
Why bothering about copyleft at all?

</blockquote>
The point (well made) was that these other licenses (as with public
domain) allow others to take do not allow us to take back on terms that
suit us.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
not to use the GPLv3, 
</blockquote>
Presumably why you have been moderately silent on this topic up till
now, the status quo suits you.<br><br>
But until today I was seeking excuses why and how my meager but
interesting kernel contributions (under an assumed name) SHOULD be GPL2
or later.<br>
Now I'm glad the kernel won't be GPL3, because I *use* it, I release
custom kernels on embedded hardware. AGPL would suck, I don't want to
be able to get near it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
*claim* will or will not use?

</blockquote>
this *IS* troll talk. I don't care if you care, I don't even recognize
your name.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
people think it's a good license worth using, 
</blockquote>
if they did think. If they noticed.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  at least they are not so
vocal about their opinions but just *act*.

</blockquote>
I'm vocal because I just noticed.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195657732.15342.79.camel@..." type="cite">
  Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
costs if you have really nothing to say.

</blockquote>
Not every comment on this list is designed to be interesting to you.<br><br>
If all you have to say is how boring we are, feel free not to say it.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 16:25

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce <at> xsec.it> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> > well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> > bytes and developer-time on the licences.
>
> Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?

I don't think it's simple to access the PD from all countries.  As I
understand it, some authors have to wait for copyright to expire now.
(I think England is among those countries, but I forget and I work on
international projects anyway.)

> Why bothering about copyleft at all?

I think there's a place in free software for a strong copyleft.

> I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
> not to use the GPLv3, and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
> *claim* will or will not use?

So, frankly, why are you even reading this thread on this mailing
list, let alone posting to it?

These aren't *excuses* not to use the GPLv3, but comments on how it's
developing.  It seems that the drawbacks of the AGPL are not
well-understood.  That's fine in general, as most developers probably
shouldn't have to worry about these things, but some do!

Personally, I learn a lot from reading the comments of others -
especially some of the smarties on this list! - even when I disagree
with them, and I doubt that I'm particularly unique in that.

> There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
> people think it's a good license worth using, at least they are not so
> vocal about their opinions but just *act*.

Most of the ones I know who have switched to GPLv3 are GNU projects
who have done so under some instruction/suggestion from FSF to their
maintainers.  I'm against the buggy licence-proliferation/drafting
process that the FSF is using, but I'm not anti-GPLv3.  I am anti-AGPL
and currently withholding development work from the only AGPL'd
project I'm associated with.  If I had the spare developers, I'd
reimplement and obsolete that project, but it's not a core business
for me.

However, with the publication of *this* particular AGPL in the last
few days, a key feature of GPLv3 has suddenly vanished.  So what are
its key features now?  Patent terms which debatably have no place in a
copyright licence and should have no effect in sane jurisdictions?
Compatibility with both GPLv2 and Apache?  The water just got a whole
lot muddier.

> Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
> saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
> costs if you have really nothing to say.

Maybe try reading messages and participating in the discussion less
stroppily.  If one starts by assuming "all these people are enemies of
my belovèd" it will never end happily.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion <at> fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

headers

simo | 21 Nov 17:48

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:25 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce <at> xsec.it> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> > > well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> > > bytes and developer-time on the licences.
> >
> > Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
> 
> I don't think it's simple to access the PD from all countries.  As I
> understand it, some authors have to wait for copyright to expire now.
> (I think England is among those countries, but I forget and I work on
> international projects anyway.)

Remember that only the author can ever sue someone, so to get a "Public
Domain" at all effects you just need to release code without any
authorship but with explicit consent to use for any purpose, and keep
record privately of the fact you own that code.

> > Why bothering about copyleft at all?
> 
> I think there's a place in free software for a strong copyleft.

Yes there is, and for even stronger (eg AGPL) too (imo).

> > I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
> > not to use the GPLv3, and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
> > *claim* will or will not use?
> 
> So, frankly, why are you even reading this thread on this mailing
> list, let alone posting to it?

I am wondering indeed :)

> These aren't *excuses* not to use the GPLv3, but comments on how it's
> developing.  It seems that the drawbacks of the AGPL are not
> well-understood.  That's fine in general, as most developers probably
> shouldn't have to worry about these things, but some do!

Some overreact to anything they learn, yes.

> Personally, I learn a lot from reading the comments of others -
> especially some of the smarties on this list! - even when I disagree
> with them, and I doubt that I'm particularly unique in that.

Me too, but when the same stuff goes over and over in long threads it
becomes trash in the end, especially when someone jump to harsh
conclusions without taking the time to form a balanced opinion weighting
all pros and cons. (Not saying you did or Sam fwiw)

> > There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
> > people think it's a good license worth using, at least they are not so
> > vocal about their opinions but just *act*.
> 
> Most of the ones I know who have switched to GPLv3 are GNU projects
> who have done so under some instruction/suggestion from FSF to their

This may not be accurate: http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp but
shows a different story. And no they are not mostly GNU projects, heck
we (Samba) changed our license before GNU projects announced it afaik.

> maintainers.  I'm against the buggy licence-proliferation/drafting
> process that the FSF is using, but I'm not anti-GPLv3.

whatever this means, I'll keep it in mind.

>   I am anti-AGPL
> and currently withholding development work from the only AGPL'd
> project I'm associated with.  If I had the spare developers, I'd
> reimplement and obsolete that project, but it's not a core business
> for me.

Is it for anyone? If not why do you care so much, just as a matter of
principle on a minutiae?

> However, with the publication of *this* particular AGPL in the last
> few days, a key feature of GPLv3 has suddenly vanished.  So what are
> its key features now?  Patent terms which debatably have no place in a
> copyright licence and should have no effect in sane jurisdictions?

You must live in a different world then the real world ... for a
license, it does not matter what the laws *should* say, it matters what
the *current* legal environment is, and what are the *current* threats.

The patent provisions were *necessary*, if you question that, I wonder
how you can understand the legal framework the GPLv3 was built in and
therefore the reach and the threats it needs to cover.

> Compatibility with both GPLv2 and Apache?  The water just got a whole
> lot muddier.

GPLv3 is compatible with a number of licenses, and funnily for example
GPLv2 only is not compatible with GPLv3 (not the other way around).
License compatibility was just one of the goals, the most important
where to address the new threats arising in computing today.

> > Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
> > saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
> > costs if you have really nothing to say.
> 
> Maybe try reading messages and participating in the discussion less
> stroppily.  If one starts by assuming "all these people are enemies of
> my belovèd" it will never end happily.

I usually do, but I do not feel like participating with useless messages
in discussions where I see no reason to, I try to stick with my own
advice of saying something where I have something to say, I guess I
failed in the last couple of email.

/me retry to stick with his own advice

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion <at> fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

headers

Ben Finney | 21 Nov 23:03

Copyright and jurisdictions (was: GPL License with clause for Web use?)

On 21-Nov-2007, simo wrote:
> Remember that only the author can ever sue someone

Perhaps you've missed some of the more nasty developments in copyright 
around the world in recent years.

In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The 
copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.

> so to get a "Public Domain" at all effects you just need to release 
> code without any authorship but with explicit consent to use for any 
> purpose, and keep record privately of the fact you own that code.

In jurisdictions that don't have such a concept of Public Domain (e.g. 
the UK, I believe), works cannot be released from copyright before 
they expire.

Releasing a work "without any authorship" in such a jurisdiction 
merely means that the copyright holder still exists but isn't 
identified on the work, leaving the recipients with a task of tracking 
them down that may be nigh-impossible; which they may need to do if 
the license terms are poorly written.

These are not academic issues; they happen with depressing frequency.

> You must live in a different world then the real world ... for a 
> license, it does not matter what the laws *should* say, it matters 
> what the *current* legal environment is, and what are the *current* 
> threats.

Indeed. Perhaps you'll bear that in mind when exhorting people on the 
ease of avoiding copyright hassles around the world.

-- 
 \     Rommel: "Don't move, or I'll turn the key on this can of Spam!" |
  `\                             -- The Goon Show, _Rommel's Treasure_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@...>

On 21-Nov-2007, simo wrote:
> Remember that only the author can ever sue someone

Perhaps you've missed some of the more nasty developments in copyright 
around the world in recent years.

In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The 
copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.

> so to get a "Public Domain" at all effects you just need to release 
> code without any authorship but with explicit consent to use for any 
> purpose, and keep record privately of the fact you own that code.

In jurisdictions that don't have such a concept of Public Domain (e.g. 
the UK, I believe), works cannot be released from copyright before 
they expire.

Releasing a work "without any authorship" in such a jurisdiction 
merely means that the copyright holder still exists but isn't 
identified on the work, leaving the recipients with a task of tracking 
them down that may be nigh-impossible; which they may need to do if 
the license terms are poorly written.

These are not academic issues; they happen with depressing frequency.

> You must live in a different world then the real world ... for a 
> license, it does not matter what the laws *should* say, it matters 
> what the *current* legal environment is, and what are the *current* 
> threats.

Indeed. Perhaps you'll bear that in mind when exhorting people on the 
ease of avoiding copyright hassles around the world.

--

-- 
 \     Rommel: "Don't move, or I'll turn the key on this can of Spam!" |
  `\                             -- The Goon Show, _Rommel's Treasure_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@...>

headers

simo | 21 Nov 23:48

Re: Copyright and jurisdictions (was: GPL License with clause for Web use?)

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 21-Nov-2007, simo wrote:
> > Remember that only the author can ever sue someone
> 
> Perhaps you've missed some of the more nasty developments in copyright 
> around the world in recent years.
> 
> In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
> negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
> a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The 
> copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.

Can you point me at proof of this claim?

> > so to get a "Public Domain" at all effects you just need to release 
> > code without any authorship but with explicit consent to use for any 
> > purpose, and keep record privately of the fact you own that code.
> 
> In jurisdictions that don't have such a concept of Public Domain (e.g. 
> the UK, I believe), works cannot be released from copyright before 
> they expire.

That's why I said "get a "Public Domain" at all effects" and not "put
into Public Domain".
Italy, France, Germany, and pretty much all of Europe share the same
roots for copyright law, more or less, and neither allow for real Public
Domain in the US sense at least.

> Releasing a work "without any authorship" in such a jurisdiction 
> merely means that the copyright holder still exists but isn't 
> identified on the work, leaving the recipients with a task of tracking 
> them down that may be nigh-impossible; which they may need to do if 
> the license terms are poorly written.

That's why I added that you actually need a very liberal license. The
idea not to release authorship publicly is to avoid getting bothered.
But proof is needed to be able to get down wannabe fake owners.

> These are not academic issues; they happen with depressing frequency.

Indeed.

> > You must live in a different world then the real world ... for a 
> > license, it does not matter what the laws *should* say, it matters 
> > what the *current* legal environment is, and what are the *current* 
> > threats.
> 
> Indeed. Perhaps you'll bear that in mind when exhorting people on the 
> ease of avoiding copyright hassles around the world.

I never exhorted anyone to use Public Domain, I wouldn't, I like
copyleft.
I just suggested how to get something as similar as possible to Public
Domain with copyright laws that do not permit to drop copyright if
that's what you aim to. Of course IANAL and mine was not intended to be
legal advice, but who would consider something like that as legal advice
anyway?

Simo.

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 11:57

Re: Copyright and jurisdictions (was: GPL License with clause for Web use?)

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: [...]
> > In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
> > negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
> > a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The 
> > copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.
>
> Can you point me at proof of this claim?

In England, I'd point at Section 107A, Chapter VI "Remedies for
Infringement", Part I "Copyright" of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (as amended) which states:

  "It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to
  enforce within their area the provisions of section 107."
  http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250424

Section 107 is "Criminal liability for making or dealing with
infringing articles, &c."

So it's worse here than Ben Finney suggests: no-one need even request
that the state prosecutes.

The only saving grace for us is that the above is written in our law,
but has not yet been activated.  However, I think that will only take
a statement by a minister, not a full legislature vote, and I believe
many state agencies are acting as if it has (as is their choice).

Agents even complain bitterly when they start trying to prosecute
copiers and are told that a general public licence has been issued.
See, for example, Gervase Markham's article in the Times last year:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article733264.ece
and follow-up at
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/02/trading_standards_followup.html

So, in England, the free software gamekeepers are funding the
proprietary poachers!  This is part of a growing trend of
establishment of private monopolies, a series of "New Enclosures",
also covering such things as gene technology and private public
spaces, which I have been speaking about publicly since 2004 at least.

We need to take a two-pronged approach: firstly, try to reverse this
establishment; secondly, while it exists, use it to fund enforcement
of free software licences (thereby diverting funds from BSA work).

> [...] The
> idea not to release authorship publicly is to avoid getting bothered.
> But proof is needed to be able to get down wannabe fake owners.

However, no downstream licensee would be able to verify that they had
permission to use/adapt/copy it, which could be a problem for them and
would almost certainly have a "chilling effect" on use.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Alex Hudson | 22 Nov 00:01

Re: Copyright and jurisdictions (was: GPL License with clause for Web use?)

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
> negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
> a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute.

The former doesn't imply the latter; I don't know where you have that
from. The state isn't some kind of copyright bat-phone.

Even for the DMCA, you have to be doing something on a seriously
commercial scale for it to qualify for criminal prosecution. Those laws
have several flaws, but the criminalisation isn't really an issue.

> In jurisdictions that don't have such a concept of Public Domain (e.g. 
> the UK, I believe), works cannot be released from copyright before 
> they expire.

"Public domain" means works outside of copyright, and obviously the UK
has such a concept.

The main issue with "public domain" is that in standard English, that
non-IT people speak, it simply means "available to be public" and has no
copyright connotation. 

While you cannot renounce copyright in the UK (afaik), without moral
rights protection for software you can effectively neuter it by
renouncing your rights. For all intents and purposes, it exists.

I will agree with you that releasing the work without authorship isn't a
great idea, but it's not necessarily a show-stopping issue. If the
copyright isn't renounced properly, it's a problem, sure.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 08:12

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> Remember that only the author can ever sue someone, so to get a "Public
> Domain" at all effects you just need to release code without any
> authorship but with explicit consent to use for any purpose, [...]

which is pretty much MIT/Expat, with a small attribution requirement
arguably already covered by moral rights in many places (not England)
or by simple copyright tracking.  It's not quite the same as PD, but
as near as makes no odds.

> > > Why bothering about copyleft at all?
> > 
> > I think there's a place in free software for a strong copyleft.
>
> Yes there is, and for even stronger (eg AGPL) too (imo).

Is there place in free software for output-marking software?

"Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not
let redistributors add any additional restrictions when they
redistribute or modify the software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware

> > Most of the ones I know who have switched to GPLv3 are GNU projects
> > who have done so under some instruction/suggestion from FSF to their
>
> This may not be accurate: http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp but
> shows a different story. And no they are not mostly GNU projects, heck
> we (Samba) changed our license before GNU projects announced it afaik.

I can't verify that.  I click "Show Me" on that link and nothing
happens.  It's also a bit shameful to produce a Non-Commercial
database of free software projects.

> > [...]  If I had the spare developers, I'd
> > reimplement and obsolete that project, but it's not a core business
> > for me.
>
> Is it for anyone? If not why do you care so much, just as a matter of
> principle on a minutiae?

I care about AGPL because networked applications (just not that
particular web application right now) are my main business now and
AGPL discriminates against that field of endeavour, along with an
ability to proprietarise a significant pool of free software.  It is a
threat to the businesses of many webmasters, because AGPL'd software
will have higher costs and less flexibility.

> > However, with the publication of *this* particular AGPL in the last
> > few days, a key feature of GPLv3 has suddenly vanished.  So what are
> > its key features now?  Patent terms which debatably have no place in a
> > copyright licence and should have no effect in sane jurisdictions?
>
> You must live in a different world then the real world ...

Wow!  That's my problem!  I'm living in Marshmallow World!  Well done!
You should debate for Oxford!

Alternatively, maybe we can skip this sort of content-free insulting
in future 

> for a
> license, it does not matter what the laws *should* say, it matters what
> the *current* legal environment is, and what are the *current* threats.

In *this* *current* legal environment, software patents are invalid,
but GPLv3 uses copyright law to import some of their effects, which is
rather irritating.

> The patent provisions were *necessary*, if you question that, I wonder
> how you can understand the legal framework the GPLv3 was built in and
> therefore the reach and the threats it needs to cover.

Unfortunately, GPLv3 seems to behave as if losing the swpat battle is
inevitable and exports them to us.

I can see why people in some places would now like a patent licence to
accompany the copyright licence, along the lines mentioned in the FAQ
or the Quick Guide, but there seemed no compelling need to put them in
the copyright licence.  I probably can understand it if someone
bothers to explain it.  In short: I've not seen any explanation of why
making GPLv3 into an combined "Intellectual Property" licence in that
way was necessary, so I don't understand why it was done.

> > Compatibility with both GPLv2 and Apache?  The water just got a whole
> > lot muddier.
>
> GPLv3 is compatible with a number of licenses, and funnily for example
> GPLv2 only is not compatible with GPLv3 [...]

Please excuse the omission of the + after the 2 by me there!

Thanks,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 22 Nov 09:07

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 07:12 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> In *this* *current* legal environment, software patents are invalid,

1. by *this* I guess you mean UK, but the GPL is meant to be
international, so you have to think broader. In too many jurisdictions
patents on software are valid and enforced.

2. even if *in theory* software patents should not be issued in Europe,
the EPO has issued as many as at least 60k of them. I am all for making
them invalid and infact I lobbied together with FFII to get to the
fantastic achievement we got into the European parliament. *But* that
has not stopped the EPO from issuing software patents in Europe at all
and there are serious threats that software patents will be completely
legalized.

> but GPLv3 uses copyright law to import some of their effects, which is
> rather irritating.

No in this case GPLv3 uses patent law and grants a patent license too.

> > The patent provisions were *necessary*, if you question that, I
> wonder
> > how you can understand the legal framework the GPLv3 was built in
> and
> > therefore the reach and the threats it needs to cover.
> 
> Unfortunately, GPLv3 seems to behave as if losing the swpat battle is
> inevitable and exports them to us.

The GPLv3 has to defend programmers it can't ignore a serious legal
threat to make a political point. The GPL is a license not a political
manifesto. (It is also a political manifesto in some sense but it is
_primarily_ a license).

> I can see why people in some places would now like a patent licence to
> accompany the copyright licence, along the lines mentioned in the FAQ
> or the Quick Guide, but there seemed no compelling need to put them in
> the copyright licence.

Well too bad, because in many places at this point just having copyright
is not enough. You really need a patent grant from people that has
patents to be able to fully exercise your 4 freedoms.
What use is a license that under copyright provides you the 4 freedom
but that you can't even distribute programs under that license because
that would infringe some patent?

>   I probably can understand it if someone
> bothers to explain it.  In short: I've not seen any explanation of why
> making GPLv3 into an combined "Intellectual Property" licence in that
> way was necessary, so I don't understand why it was done.

Simple, take an evil company, this evil company will take the software
Mj Ray has made, add some modifications to it to enhance a core
functionality and also take a patent on it.
This company starts distributing it, under the GPLv3- (no patents) and
at the same time this company prohibits even Mj Ray from distributing
any copy unless he pay this company X Eur per copy because this evil
company has patents that cover your modified work and want royalties per
copy.

Would you like to see your own software killed this way?
If you like it, go for a license that has absolutely no explicit (GPLv3)
nor implied (GPLv2) patent provisions ...

Simo.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 13:55

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not
> let redistributors add any additional restrictions when they
> redistribute or modify the software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware

This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 14:59

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not
> > let redistributors add any additional restrictions when they
> > redistribute or modify the software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3.
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware
>
> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.

Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.

FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
the wrong way to fix this, just like editing the GNU website after a
GNU luminary makes false claims in interviews is the wrong way to fix
those.  Instead, try apologising and issuing corrections...

Or maybe GPLv3 was never meant to be a strong copyleft.  iDunno.
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 15:33

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
>> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
>
> Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.

That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
can be added.

I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
clear over and over again.

Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
solve some licence incompatibility issues.

> FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
> the wrong way to fix this,

You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 

And I don't agree that categories.html was FSF's "basic guidance".  The Free
Software Definition is a core document, but not categories.html.

> Instead, try apologising and issuing corrections...

You could be right here.  This might warrant an "Oops.  Thanks for noticing
that.  Fixed."

I've already sent the mail to FSF suggesting that this wording be fixed.  If
you like, I can right a follow up mail saying that you would like an
official "Oops, fixed" email.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

simo | 22 Nov 16:11

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> >> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
> >
> > Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
> 
> That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
> can be added.
> 
> I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
> was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
> clear over and over again.
> 
> Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
> In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
> necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
> solve some licence incompatibility issues.

Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

> > FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
> > the wrong way to fix this,
> 
> You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 

Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
all costs and is confrontational.

Simo.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 16:15

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


simo <simo.sorce@...> writes:
> You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

I thought about this but decided that the distinction isn't obvious, so even
if the webpage is technically correct, it's still a poor choice of words or
it needs to have the difference between restrictions and requirements
explained.

My suggested new wording was:

  Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let
  redistributors add any additional restrictions which would prevent
  recipients having the four freedoms or to make using those freedoms
  excessively inconvenient when they redistribute or modify the software.

Or:

  Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let
  redistributors add any additional restrictions which would make the
  software non-free software when they redistribute or modify the software.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 16:24

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
MJ Ray <mjr-uWYXIsyQkeEe6eUIopPxIg@public.gmane.org> writes:

This looks like a mistake in categories.html. I'll mail FSF about this.
Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements can be added. I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users was the core value of copyleft. And I think the GNU project have made this clear over and over again. Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms. In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can solve some licence incompatibility issues.
Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. You are confusing restrictions with requirements. GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV. Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a distributor is a user in that sense.

Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.

And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.

FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is the wrong way to fix this,
You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever?
Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here. Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at all costs and is confrontational.

If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected intention.

Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I) the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper consideration may still strengthen the official position.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195744296.15342.175.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    MJ Ray <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mjr@...">&lt;mjr@...&gt;</a> writes:

    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.

      </blockquote>
      Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.

    </blockquote>
    That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
can be added.

I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
clear over and over again.

Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
solve some licence incompatibility issues.

  </blockquote>

Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

</blockquote>
With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the
GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
distributor is a user in that sense.<br><br>
Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.<br><br>
And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195744296.15342.175.camel@..." type="cite">

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
the wrong way to fix this,

    </blockquote>
    You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 

  </blockquote>

Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
all costs and is confrontational.

</blockquote>
If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform
rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected
intention.<br><br>
Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I)
the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper
consideration may still strengthen the official position.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 17:07

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: 
> > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> >   
> > > MJ Ray &lt;mjr@...&gt; writes:
> > >     
> > > > > This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
> > > > >         
> > > > Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
> > > >       
> > > That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
> > > can be added.
> > > 
> > > I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
> > > was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
> > > clear over and over again.
> > > 
> > > Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
> > > In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
> > > necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
> > > solve some licence incompatibility issues.
> > >     
> > 
> > Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
> > You are confusing restrictions with requirements.
> > 
> > GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
> > Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
> > of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
> > protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
> >   
> With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of
> the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
> distributor is a user in that sense.

This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use
and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the
context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the
everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.

> Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
> is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
> statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.

Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
users".

There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
categories at once, is not relevant.

> And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.

Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

> > > > FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
> > > > the wrong way to fix this,
> > > >       
> > > You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 
> > >     
> > 
> > Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
> > Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
> > all costs and is confrontational.
> >   
> If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform
> rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected
> intention.

No questions.

> Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I)
> the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper
> consideration may still strengthen the official position.

In fact Ciaran wnet the right route and asked for correction without
arguing about the implied accusations of Mj Ray, kudos to Ciaran.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 17:17

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. You are confusing restrictions with requirements. GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV. Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a distributor is a user in that sense.
This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.

Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate you were:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom"

And lets look at the front page: http://www.gnu.org/

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software"

You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation

Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.
Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing users".

Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL guarantees to users.

There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both categories at once, is not relevant.

It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.

And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom"

And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain, because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you look at it.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: 

    <blockquote type="cite">
      Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.  

    </blockquote>
    With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of
the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
distributor is a user in that sense.

  </blockquote>

This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use
and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the
context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the
everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.

</blockquote>
Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate
you were:<br>
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"<br><br>
And lets look at the front page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/">http://www.gnu.org/</a><br><br>
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software"<br><br>
You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an
explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation<br><br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.

  </blockquote>

Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
users".

</blockquote>
Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL
guarantees to users.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@..." type="cite">

There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
categories at once, is not relevant.

  
</blockquote>
It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.

  </blockquote>

Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

  
</blockquote>
You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:<br>
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"<br><br>
And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain,
because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you
look at it.<br><br>
Sam
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 17:42

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07: 
> > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >   
> > > * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: 
> > >     
> > > > Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
> > > > You are confusing restrictions with requirements.
> > > > 
> > > > GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
> > > > Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
> > > > of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
> > > > protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.  
> > > >       
> > > With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of
> > > the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
> > > distributor is a user in that sense.
> > >     
> > 
> > This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use
> > and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the
> > context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the
> > everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.
> >   
> Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate
> you were:
> "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
> distributors freedom"
> 
> And lets look at the front page: http://www.gnu.org/
> 
> "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it
> refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software"
> 
> You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an
> explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation

Sorry I don't see the contradiction.

> > > Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
> > > is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
> > > statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.
> > >     
> > 
> > Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
> > users".
> >   
> Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL
> guarantees to users.

Again you mix roles.
*Users* are free to distribute, The moment they distribute, they become
*also* distributor. In the role of *distributors*, they have to fulfill
requirements.
The license is clear, *mere use* does not require you to accept terms.
But if you want to *distribute* things matters change, you *now* have to
fulfill requirements.

> > There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
> > categories at once, is not relevant.
> > 
> >   
> It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.

Philosophy is not legally binding. And you are confusing what a license
can do with what you wish it could do.

The license can't tell you what is right or wrong, good or bad. The
license sets the rules, humans can attach emotional meaning to the
rules. This doesn't change the legal nature of the rules.
Rules can be drafted (limited by the law) to match as closely as
possible someone believes, but to be effective you have to get on the
legal ground and choose carefully wording getting to the best and
legally valid approximation of what you think is right or wrong.
But the license is not a moral guide, it is a legal text. And as a legal
text it is limited in what it can say and has to make compromises
balancing what you can accept and what you can't to reach your goal.

That said, even on philosophical grounds, I do not see any problem, I
just think that *users* can be charged with much more meaning than what
it should, probably the FSF should disambiguate the same way it try hard
to do it with the word "free", for the benefit of the true believers.
(Which with no doubt at that point will run screaming the FSF is
changing the rules, mixing cards and generally betraying the *true
believe*)

> > > And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
> > >     
> > 
> > Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.
> > 
> >   
> You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:
> "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
> distributors freedom"

Exactly. I used user in a specific way, not in a generic way.

> And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain,
> because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you
> look at it.

Sorry, I can't be more explicit than this, what I know of law is self
taught and just good enough to let me grasp (I hope) basics, not enough
to clearly explain to a layman with adequate words (and English not
being my main language makes that even more difficult).

But you have to understand that a license is a legal document, therefore
you have to read it keeping in mind the legal framework and language.

If you keep thinking about the GPL as something else, well, bad luck, no
wonder you will keep finding it difficult to understand the language and
the requirements, and who is the recipient of such requirements.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 17:47

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:42:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. You are confusing restrictions with requirements. GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV. Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a distributor is a user in that sense.
This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.
Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate you were: "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom" And lets look at the front page: http://www.gnu.org/ "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software" You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation
Sorry I don't see the contradiction.

I know, but I did, however you explained below.

Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.
Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing users".
Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL guarantees to users.
Again you mix roles. *Users* are free to distribute, The moment they distribute, they become *also* distributor. In the role of *distributors*, they have to fulfill requirements.

Unless they are using the AGPL? Then a user has requirements too?

The license is clear, *mere use* does not require you to accept terms. But if you want to *distribute* things matters change, you *now* have to fulfill requirements.

except with the AGPL?

There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both categories at once, is not relevant.
It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.
Philosophy is not legally binding. And you are confusing what a license can do with what you wish it could do.

No I am not, I am confusing what (you* meant by "user" because you scoped the word user with the "point of view of the GPL"

You have explained yourself, but I reserve to say what confused me.

[deleted]

And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.
You were the one who placed the scope on the word user: "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom"
Exactly. I used user in a specific way, not in a generic way.

whatever

And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain, because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you look at it.
Sorry, I can't be more explicit than this, what I know of law is self taught and just good enough to let me grasp (I hope) basics, not enough to clearly explain to a layman with adequate words (and English not being my main language makes that even more difficult).

Well you seemed certain enough that what you said wasn't confusing to a native english speaker, even though I am a native english speaker and I said clearly that I was confused and showed where and how.

But you have to understand that a license is a legal document, therefore you have to read it keeping in mind the legal framework and language.

It was merely YOUR use of the word USER that was puzzling.

I understand that license and that is WHY it concerns me.

If you keep thinking about the GPL as something else, well, bad luck, no wonder you will keep finding it difficult to understand the language and the requirements, and who is the recipient of such requirements.

I think it is the language of a non-native english-speaker I was having difficulty understanding.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:42:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07: 

    <blockquote type="cite">
      On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

      
      <blockquote type="cite">
        * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: 

        
        <blockquote type="cite">
          Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.  

          
        </blockquote>
        With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of
the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
distributor is a user in that sense.

        
      </blockquote>
      This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use
and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the
context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the
everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.

      
    </blockquote>
    Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate
you were:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"

And lets look at the front page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/">http://www.gnu.org/</a>

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it
refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software"

You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an
explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation

  </blockquote>

Sorry I don't see the contradiction.

</blockquote>
I know, but I did, however you explained below. <br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.

        
      </blockquote>
      Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
users".

      
    </blockquote>
    Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL
guarantees to users.

  </blockquote>

Again you mix roles.
*Users* are free to distribute, The moment they distribute, they become
*also* distributor. In the role of *distributors*, they have to fulfill
requirements.

</blockquote>
Unless they are using the AGPL? Then a user has requirements too?<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  The license is clear, *mere use* does not require you to accept terms.
But if you want to *distribute* things matters change, you *now* have to
fulfill requirements.

</blockquote>
except with the AGPL?<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
categories at once, is not relevant.

  

    </blockquote>
    It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.

  </blockquote>

Philosophy is not legally binding. And you are confusing what a license
can do with what you wish it could do.

</blockquote>
No I am not, I am confusing what (you* meant by "user" because you
scoped the word user with the "point of view of the GPL"<br><br>
You have explained yourself, but I reserve to say what confused me.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  [deleted]

  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.

        
      </blockquote>
      Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

  

    </blockquote>
    You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"

  </blockquote>

Exactly. I used user in a specific way, not in a generic way.

</blockquote>
whatever<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain,
because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you
look at it.

  </blockquote>

Sorry, I can't be more explicit than this, what I know of law is self
taught and just good enough to let me grasp (I hope) basics, not enough
to clearly explain to a layman with adequate words (and English not
being my main language makes that even more difficult).

</blockquote>
Well you seemed certain enough that what you said wasn't confusing to a
native english speaker, even though I am a native english speaker and I
said clearly that I was confused and showed where and how.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">

But you have to understand that a license is a legal document, therefore
you have to read it keeping in mind the legal framework and language.

</blockquote>
It was merely YOUR use of the word USER that was puzzling.<br><br>
I understand that license and that is WHY it concerns me.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195749766.15342.225.camel@..." type="cite">

If you keep thinking about the GPL as something else, well, bad luck, no
wonder you will keep finding it difficult to understand the language and
the requirements, and who is the recipient of such requirements.

</blockquote>
I think it is the language of a non-native english-speaker I was having
difficulty understanding.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 18:01

state of play: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

I think we are discussed out, and it comes down to:

Some people don't like the AGPL handling in GPL3
Some people think it is not in line with the FSF values as they
understood them.
Some people think it is in line with the FSF values.

Have I missed anything or anyone?

In minutiae we find that there is confusion over the wording used by
various parties to explain why the feel the way they do.

Of course we can't expect a lexical analysis to show how expectations
are wrong as words are only an approximation to internal thought, but we
can use lexical analysis to understand why opinions differ.

And, I think thats it! ?

Sam

headers

simo | 22 Nov 19:29

Re: state of play: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:01 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> I think we are discussed out, and it comes down to:
> 
> Some people don't like the AGPL handling in GPL3
> Some people think it is not in line with the FSF values as they
> understood them.
> Some people think it is in line with the FSF values.
> 
> Have I missed anything or anyone?
> 
> In minutiae we find that there is confusion over the wording used by
> various parties to explain why the feel the way they do.
> 
> Of course we can't expect a lexical analysis to show how expectations
> are wrong as words are only an approximation to internal thought, but we
> can use lexical analysis to understand why opinions differ.
> 
> And, I think thats it! ?

Deal! 

Simo.

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 16:28

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
> of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
> protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with
free software.

[...]
> Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
> Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
> all costs and is confrontational.

Simo is playing the man, not the ball here.

But then, I am a bit bitter that FSF's hypocrisy in updating their
basic texts to match their leaders' actions isn't more widely-known
when me and my projects get such a bad press from FSF supporters.
What long-time supporter wouldn't get a bit fed up with the original
proponent endlessly rewriting its own core beliefs?  How can we build
stable shared alliances if the common ground keeps getting moved
without agreement?

I don't mean to be confrontational, but sometimes I'm at a loss of any
other way to highlight FSF use of tactics like lock-out, ret-con,
hair-splitting, and so on.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 22 Nov 17:20

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> > Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
> > of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
> > protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
> 
> User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with
> free software.

And how that matters?

If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it?
Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that
case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor.
When you talk legal matter the role you play is important.

When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of
distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms.

The distinction is all there in the license in any part of it.

> [...]
> > Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
> > Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
> > all costs and is confrontational.
> 
> Simo is playing the man, not the ball here.
> 
> But then, I am a bit bitter that FSF's hypocrisy in updating their
> basic texts to match their leaders' actions isn't more widely-known
> when me and my projects get such a bad press from FSF supporters.

I play man, and you?
You keep trying to find FSF at fault, you are biased, and you do not
recognized humans can commit errors. The FSF is made of humans not
machines. That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or
change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. I see that only in
the words of their detractors.

> What long-time supporter wouldn't get a bit fed up with the original
> proponent endlessly rewriting its own core beliefs?  How can we build
> stable shared alliances if the common ground keeps getting moved
> without agreement?

Only a person that believe in a slightly different set of core values
can think that FSF core values change. You think you "know" perfectly
what are the core values, and as soon as your very strict expectations
do not match reality you blame the FSF for shifting. Many do this in
fact.
But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that
*you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of
a conspiracy to change FSF core values.
I don't believe in large scale conspiracies, so I think you have to
think harder, because IMO you are at fault here.

> I don't mean to be confrontational, but sometimes I'm at a loss of any
> other way to highlight FSF use of tactics like lock-out, ret-con,
> hair-splitting, and so on.
> 
> Hope that explains,

No need to explain, this was evident. Unfortunately, nobody can change
your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts. It's like religion and
sects, every single one think *they* own the *truth* and the others are
shifting the core values because they were lured by the devil,
Clear tracts of radicalism and extremism, luckily they seldom win.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 17:41

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:20:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
simo <simo.sorce-AderjAtKw5Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with free software.
And how that matters? If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it? Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor. When you talk legal matter the role you play is important. When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms. The distinction is all there in the license in any part of it.

We all see that, and if thats how you meant "user" please explain your original statement on how the GPL is to protect the users freedom (and freedom to distribute) but not their freedom as a distributor.

[...]
Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here. Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at all costs and is confrontational.
Simo is playing the man, not the ball here. But then, I am a bit bitter that FSF's hypocrisy in updating their basic texts to match their leaders' actions isn't more widely-known when me and my projects get such a bad press from FSF supporters.
I play man, and you?

then you will lose.
You should play principle, it's the only way to win, and in the end it will always come down to a misunderstanding or a difference in principle which is by definition, a preference.

You keep trying to find FSF at fault,

I have not observed MJ try to find fault as I understand the charge. I have seen him try to express a concern and why FSF behaviour perplexes him as it does me.

you are biased,

so is everyone, it is a nature of existance

and you do not recognized humans can commit errors.

perhaps you may admit you committed an error here?

The FSF is made of humans not machines.

That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. I see that only in the words of their detractors.

So here you reveal your bias. it's just another way of saying you agree with the core values as they are currently demonstrated, but we knew that.

It doesn't mean they haven't changed though, you are just saying you haven't noticed.

That doesn't make anyone else bad or evil-ly biased just because they say they have.

What long-time supporter wouldn't get a bit fed up with the original proponent endlessly rewriting its own core beliefs? How can we build stable shared alliances if the common ground keeps getting moved without agreement?
Only a person that believe in a slightly different set of core values can think that FSF core values change.

Take the other perspective. Only a person that believe in a slightly different set of core values can think the FSF core values do not change.

Of course they change, so does the world. "Users" now has extra meaning because of web services, thats what this is about.

Web service users were NOT users in the regular sense which is WHY the AGPL is being mooted.

Of course there will be different expectations on how this will be handled. Just because the word "users" (GPL1 days) is also applied to web users does not itself mean the Stallman WOULD have automatically wanted to include them in the protections of the GPL. He may have wanted to but it would perhaps have been based on activities and rights, not merely because the word matched.

My personal view is that if in GPL1 days, Stallman looked ahead, web service users would NOT have been considered, just as the source to NNTP or Gopher servers need not be made available to those who connect to them. (Further evidence is that AGPL took so long).

However, with thin clients the nature of software provision has changed and so philosophically it becomes important that web users SHOULD be included, and are.

I see this as a change in interpretation of core values even if the same WORDS can be used to describe those values.

And I see the AGPL/GPL3 combination as undesirable. I prefer the GPL3+ AGPL linking solution I proposed as it does not taint or force-upgrade any GPL3 enhancements.

You think you "know" perfectly what are the core values, and as soon as your very strict expectations do not match reality you blame the FSF for shifting. Many do this in fact.

You are doing it just now in fact. Just because you haven't been offended yet you say that they have not changed.

But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that *you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of a conspiracy to change FSF core values.

So are you.

I don't believe in large scale conspiracies, so I think you have to think harder, because IMO you are at fault here.

So, to you this is a large scale conspiracy. This explains why you are so angry.

To me it is human mortality, of course such things happen, and they get fixed by talking about it.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but sometimes I'm at a loss of any other way to highlight FSF use of tactics like lock-out, ret-con, hair-splitting, and so on. Hope that explains,
No need to explain, this was evident. Unfortunately, nobody can change your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts.

There are no "agreed facts" unless there is agreement!
Of course you think your perception is fact, but so do others.
There is only belief based on perception.

It's like religion and sects, every single one think *they* own the *truth* and the others are shifting the core values because they were lured by the devil, Clear tracts of radicalism and extremism, luckily they seldom win.

You have also just described your position. You think you own the truth (or you and the FSF because you haven;t been offended yet) and that everyone else is shifting.

In fact all that has been expressed is that the GPL3/AGPL seems to be against our view of the FSF core values.

of course, speaking for myself, either the values have changed or I have misunderstood. Either way (if it comes to the end) I am subscribing to the wrong organization. It has not come to that extreme yet, I don't think it will.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:20:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    simo <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simo.sorce@...">&lt;simo.sorce@...&gt;</a> wrote:

    <blockquote type="cite">
      Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

    </blockquote>
    User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with
free software.

  </blockquote>

And how that matters?

If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it?
Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that
case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor.
When you talk legal matter the role you play is important.

When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of
distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms.

The distinction is all there in the license in any part of it.

</blockquote>
We all see that, and if thats how you meant "user" please explain your
original statement on how the GPL is to protect the users freedom (and
freedom to distribute) but not their freedom as a distributor. <br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    [...]

    <blockquote type="cite">
      Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
all costs and is confrontational.

    </blockquote>
    Simo is playing the man, not the ball here.

But then, I am a bit bitter that FSF's hypocrisy in updating their
basic texts to match their leaders' actions isn't more widely-known
when me and my projects get such a bad press from FSF supporters.

  </blockquote>

I play man, and you?

</blockquote>
then you will lose. <br>
You should play principle, it's the only way to win, and in the end it
will always come down to a misunderstanding or a difference in
principle which is by definition, a preference.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  You keep trying to find FSF at fault, 
</blockquote>
I have not observed MJ try to find fault as I understand the charge. I
have seen him try to express a concern and why FSF behaviour perplexes
him as it does me.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  you are biased, 
</blockquote>
so is everyone, it is a nature of existance<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  and you do not
recognized humans can commit errors. 
</blockquote>
perhaps you may admit you committed an error here?<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  The FSF is made of humans not
machines. 
</blockquote>
?<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or
change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. I see that only in
the words of their detractors.

</blockquote>
So here you reveal your bias. it's just another way of saying you agree
with the core values as they are currently demonstrated, but we knew
that.<br><br>
It doesn't mean they haven't changed though, you are just saying you
haven't noticed.<br><br>
That doesn't make anyone else bad or evil-ly biased just because they
say they have.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    What long-time supporter wouldn't get a bit fed up with the original
proponent endlessly rewriting its own core beliefs?  How can we build
stable shared alliances if the common ground keeps getting moved
without agreement?

  </blockquote>

Only a person that believe in a slightly different set of core values
can think that FSF core values change. 
</blockquote>
Take the other perspective. Only a person that believe in a slightly
different set of core values can think the FSF core values do not
change.<br><br>
Of course they change, so does the world. "Users" now has extra meaning
because of web services, thats what this is about.<br><br>
Web service users were NOT users in the regular sense which is WHY the
AGPL is being mooted.<br><br>
Of course there will be different expectations on how this will be
handled. Just because the word "users" (GPL1 days) is also applied to
web users does not itself mean the Stallman WOULD have automatically
wanted to include them in the protections of the GPL. He may have
wanted to but it would perhaps have been based on activities and
rights, not merely because the word matched.<br><br>
My personal view is that if in GPL1 days, Stallman looked ahead, web
service users would NOT have been considered, just as the source to
NNTP or Gopher servers need not be made available to those who connect
to them. (Further evidence is that AGPL took so long).<br><br>
However, with thin clients the nature of software provision has changed
and so philosophically it becomes important that web users SHOULD be
included, and are.<br><br>
I see this as a change in interpretation of core values even if the
same WORDS can be used to describe those values. <br><br>
And I see the AGPL/GPL3 combination as undesirable. I prefer the GPL3+
AGPL linking solution I proposed as it does not taint or force-upgrade
any GPL3 enhancements.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  You think you "know" perfectly
what are the core values, and as soon as your very strict expectations
do not match reality you blame the FSF for shifting. Many do this in
fact.

</blockquote>
You are doing it just now in fact. Just because you haven't been
offended yet you say that they have not changed.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that
*you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of
a conspiracy to change FSF core values.

</blockquote>
So are you.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  I don't believe in large scale conspiracies, so I think you have to
think harder, because IMO you are at fault here.

</blockquote>
So, to you this is a large scale conspiracy. This explains why you are
so angry.<br><br>
To me it is human mortality, of course such things happen, and they get
fixed by talking about it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    I don't mean to be confrontational, but sometimes I'm at a loss of any
other way to highlight FSF use of tactics like lock-out, ret-con,
hair-splitting, and so on.

Hope that explains,

  </blockquote>

No need to explain, this was evident. Unfortunately, nobody can change
your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts. 
</blockquote>
There are no "agreed facts" unless there is agreement! <br>
Of course you think your perception is fact, but so do others.<br>
There is only belief based on perception.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195748418.15342.203.camel@..." type="cite">
  It's like religion and
sects, every single one think *they* own the *truth* and the others are
shifting the core values because they were lured by the devil,
Clear tracts of radicalism and extremism, luckily they seldom win.

</blockquote>
You have also just described your position. You think you own the truth
(or you and the FSF because you haven;t been offended yet) and that
everyone else is shifting.<br><br>
In fact all that has been expressed is that the GPL3/AGPL seems to be
against our view of the FSF core values.<br><br>
of course, speaking for myself, either the values have changed or I
have misunderstood. Either way (if it comes to the end) I am
subscribing to the wrong organization. It has not come to that extreme
yet, I don't think it will.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Michael Kesper | 23 Nov 12:59

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Hi,

Puuh this is already long, but I think there are some good points here:

On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 04:41:52PM +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Of course there will be different expectations on how this will be
> handled. Just because the word "users" (GPL1 days) is also applied to
> web users does not itself mean the Stallman WOULD have automatically
> wanted to include them in the protections of the GPL. He may have wanted
> to but it would perhaps have been based on activities and rights, not
> merely because the word matched.

Although this is speculative (we would have to ask RMS ;) ) I think this
makes some point.

> My personal view is that if in GPL1 days, Stallman looked ahead, web
> service users would NOT have been considered, just as the source to NNTP
> or Gopher servers need not be made available to those who connect to
> them. (Further evidence is that AGPL took so long).
> 
> However, with thin clients the nature of software provision has changed
> and so philosophically it becomes important that web users SHOULD be
> included, and are.
> 
> I see this as a change in interpretation of core values even if the same
> WORDS can be used to describe those values.
> 
> And I see the AGPL/GPL3 combination as undesirable. I prefer the GPL3+
> AGPL linking solution I proposed as it does not taint or force-upgrade
> any GPL3 enhancements.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

Best wishes
Michael
--
Join the fellowship of FSFE and protect your freedom! | http://www.fsfe.org

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 18:25

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> > > Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
> > > of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
> > > protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
> > 
> > User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with
> > free software.
>
> And how that matters?

You can't protect the freedom of one while denying the same freedom to
the other in any sensible way.

> If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it?
> Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that
> case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor.
> When you talk legal matter the role you play is important.
>
> When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of
> distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms.

I suspect I don't understand the broken English above, nor the point
it's trying to make.  It looks like it's trying to make the same point
I was making, that everyone might be a shop-owner, but I doubt that.

[...]
> You keep trying to find FSF at fault, 

I don't need to try.  I just keep finding bugs in normal operation.
Maybe I'm just unlucky.  It could get pretty depressing, if I were
that way inclined.

> you are biased, and you do not recognized humans can commit errors.

I recognise that - I suggested that apologising and correcting errors
would be good.  However, some of the humans in FSF seem to be regarded
as incapable of errors.  If they make a mistake, it seems to be
claimed as either a mistake in whatever contradicts their latest
statement instead (which is then updated), or in the information they
were given, or something like that.

> [...] That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or
> change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. [...]

You'll never find it if you refuse to look for it and deny it when you
see it.  Elevating their leaders to writers of "scriptures" is madness
- you do that, then call me an extremist?  Bizarre!

> But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that
> *you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of
> a conspiracy to change FSF core values.

I have some concerns about its operations, but I don't think there's a
conspiracy.  I do think the core values have changed over time,
without widespread hacker agreement, and I think that's a problem.

> [...] Unfortunately, nobody can change
> your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts. It's like religion and[...]

Oh, it's dead easy to change my beliefs: explain *why* I'm wrong.
It's not religion: in God we trust - all others bring data.
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 22 Nov 19:40

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:25 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or
> > change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. [...]
> 
> You'll never find it if you refuse to look for it and deny it when you
> see it.  Elevating their leaders to writers of "scriptures" is madness
> - you do that, then call me an extremist?  Bizarre!

I surrender, you clearly master English better than me, and I can't try
to use rhetoric with such a big handicap, you will always find an easy
way to turn what I say to your advantage.
As this discussion seem more a duel than a discussion, I quit.

So long.

Simo.

headers

list | 22 Nov 18:27

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:

> Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> > MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > > "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let 
> > > redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the 
> > > software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3. 
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware
> >
> > This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.

The AGPL compatibility is NOT an added restriction!  It was there right from its first 
official release (or earlier).

Okay, you didn't know the exact wording of the final AGPLv3 then, but it is not that 
different from the former version of the Affero GPL, so you could have known what it is 
about.

--

-- 
AKFoerster

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 18:33

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* list-wcjLjw6O4QLddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org wrote, On 22/11/07 17:27:

Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran-VaTbYqLCNhc@public.gmane.org> wrote:
MJ Ray <mjr-uWYXIsyQkeEe6eUIopPxIg@public.gmane.org> writes:
"Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware
This looks like a mistake in categories.html. I'll mail FSF about this.

The AGPL compatibility is NOT an added restriction! It was there right from its first official release (or earlier).

words... however it sounds plausable put like this:

The AGPL compatibility clause provides for adding an extra restriction.

By my reading, if the privileges of GPL/13 are invoked then the web-quine (weird word, that) applies to further distributions.

And, therefore GPL/13 itself requires that the possibility of "this restriction being added" be permitted and so this required permission also becomes an additional restriction (or obligation) that met be passed in order to distribute.

In any case it is additional to GPL2 which is the context against which many see it anyway.

Okay, you didn't know the exact wording of the final AGPLv3 then, but it is not that different from the former version of the Affero GPL, so you could have known what it is about

Maybe I could/should have.

I was looking forward AGPL support, I personally only realised this (possible) implication yesterday.

MJ may have other reasons. (I do butt in a lot, don't I?)

Simo has suggested in the "pleasant solution" thread that my fears are ungrounded, but we will see.

Sam

<div>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:list@...">list@...</a> wrote, On 22/11/07 17:27:
<blockquote cite="mid:20071122172724.GA3802@..." type="cite">
  Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    Ciaran O'Riordan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ciaran@...">&lt;ciaran@...&gt;</a> wrote:

    <blockquote type="cite">
      MJ Ray <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mjr@...">&lt;mjr@...&gt;</a> writes:

      <blockquote type="cite">
        "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let 
redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the 
software" but GPLv3 does let, through AGPLv3. 
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#CopyleftedSoftware</a>

      </blockquote>
      This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.

    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>

The AGPL compatibility is NOT an added restriction!  It was there right from its first 
official release (or earlier).

</blockquote>
words... however it sounds plausable put like this:<br><br>
The AGPL compatibility clause provides for adding an extra restriction.<br><br>
By my reading, if the privileges of GPL/13 are invoked then the
web-quine (weird word, that) applies to further distributions.<br><br>
And, therefore GPL/13 itself requires that the possibility of "this
restriction being added" be permitted and so this required permission
also becomes an additional restriction (or obligation) that met be
passed in order to distribute.<br><br>
In any case it is additional to GPL2 which is the context against which
many see it anyway.<br><blockquote cite="mid:20071122172724.GA3802@..." type="cite">

Okay, you didn't know the exact wording of the final AGPLv3 then, but it is not that 
different from the former version of the Affero GPL, so you could have known what it is 
about
</blockquote>
Maybe I could/should have.<br><br>
I was looking forward AGPL support, I personally only realised this
(possible) implication yesterday.<br><br>
MJ may have other reasons. (I do butt in a lot, don't I?)<br><br>
Simo has suggested in the "pleasant solution" thread that my fears are
ungrounded, but we will see.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Bernhard R. Link | 21 Nov 17:41

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo <simo.sorce@...> [071121 16:05]:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sam Liddicott <sam@...> wrote:
> > > In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
> > > their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
> > > in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
> > 
> > Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> > well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> > bytes and developer-time on the licences.
> 
> Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
> Why bothering about copyleft at all?

I can't speak for others, but I personaly want copyleft in the sense
that I want a license that gives users the freedom to use (including
modification/copying/distribution/other stuff copyright law has decided
are not worthy freedoms to protect) my software and avoid other people
abusing it in a way not giving this freedoms.
In my eyes AGPL does not grant the freedoms sufficently, thus I consider
using my code to force people under that license something I do not
want. In this regard GPLv3 is anti-copyleft in my eyes, because while it
still makes the software free, it does not even garantee its freedom,
but even makes it impossible for people to put it under any copyleft.
Because you cannot combine it with code that disallows making the
software non-free, because you are forced to allow use-restrictions.

This is my personal opinion. You might not share it. But if you do no
like it, please try to argue against the content,
	Bernhard R. Link

headers

Shane Martin Coughlan | 21 Nov 16:37

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Hi guys

A lot of heated debate here.  I'd like to suggest that everyone takes a
deep breath and counts to ten :)

As usual the FSF's GPL FAQ has some information that may be useful:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

For specific licence questions and concerns regarding the AGPLv3 I
suggest email Brett Smith and the FSF licensing team at
licensing@...  Speculating about the terms of the licence may not
be the optimal way to understand it's implications.

Naturally FSFE's FTF is also glad to lend a hand where we can.  You can
contact me directly or email the FTF at ftf@...

Regards

Shane

PS: Off-topic, but would you chaps be willing to help out with some
practical licence usage questions I have?  Sort of little market survey.

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan@...
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 20:12

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Shane Martin Coughlan <coughlan@...> wrote: [...]
> As usual the FSF's GPL FAQ has some information that may be useful:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Erm, that FAQ doesn't actually cover the frequently-asked questions
about GPLv3's patent-in-copyright or most aspects of the AGPL upgrade
clause or most of the other content discussed in this thread.  Most of
the new FSF licences are not in its compatibility matrix.  Why is it
useful here?  Why would you think think it's not already well-read?

> For specific licence questions and concerns regarding the AGPLv3 I
> suggest email Brett Smith and the FSF licensing team at
> licensing@...  Speculating about the terms of the licence may not
> be the optimal way to understand it's implications.

It's usually faster and more verifiable when it works, though.  What's
licensing <at> fsf's current response time, resolution time and enquirer
satisfaction rate?

> Naturally FSFE's FTF is also glad to lend a hand where we can.  You can
> contact me directly or email the FTF at ftf@...

What's FTF's response, resolution and satisfaction?

> PS: Off-topic, but would you chaps be willing to help out with some
> practical licence usage questions I have?  Sort of little market survey.

I would, but I think FSF would class me as off-message for
documents-as-software and web applications... and probably GPLv3 too now.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Shane Martin Coughlan | 21 Nov 20:40

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray wrote:
> Shane Martin Coughlan <coughlan@...> wrote: [...]
>> As usual the FSF's GPL FAQ has some information that may be useful:
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
> 
> Erm, that FAQ doesn't actually cover the frequently-asked questions
> about GPLv3's patent-in-copyright or most aspects of the AGPL upgrade
> clause or most of the other content discussed in this thread.  Most of
> the new FSF licences are not in its compatibility matrix.  Why is it
> useful here?  Why would you think think it's not already well-read?

Well, for example the FAQ discusses GPLv3's patent clause briefly here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3PatentRetaliation
and here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense

The FAQ has some items about AGPL here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3Notwithstanding
here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely
and here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3CorrespondingSource

For questions regarding the patent language not specifically covered in
the FAQ you should contact FSF's licensing lab directly.  Indeed, if the
question is generally applicable I would hope to see it incorporated in
future versions of the FAQ.  The same goes for questions about AGPL.

Regarding the compatibility matrix, your statement is incorrect.  Both
GPLv3 and LGPLv3 are listed here.  AGPL is not yet listed, but that
hardly constitutes "most of the new FSF licences."

I think this page might be worth a look to see if it answers people's
questions.  Where it does not, I suggest contacting the FSF licensing
team directly to receive authoritative answers rather than speculating.

>> For specific licence questions and concerns regarding the AGPLv3 I
>> suggest email Brett Smith and the FSF licensing team at
>> licensing@...  Speculating about the terms of the licence may not
>> be the optimal way to understand it's implications.
> 
> It's usually faster and more verifiable when it works, though.  What's
> licensing <at> fsf's current response time, resolution time and enquirer
> satisfaction rate?

What is usually faster?  Speculation and the assumption that it is
verifiable as fact?  I am afraid I would not agree with that assertion.
 It is important to question things and put them under consideration,
but it should be done in context.  Where uncertainty exists about a
topic it is prudent to contact the originators to ask for their perspective.

As for the response time, resolution time and satisfaction rate, you
would have to ask the FSF licensing team.

>> Naturally FSFE's FTF is also glad to lend a hand where we can.  You can
>> contact me directly or email the FTF at ftf@...
> 
> What's FTF's response, resolution and satisfaction?

We usually acknowledge and queue items within one to two days.  We
resolve them as quickly as possible, though each item depends on its
complexity.  For instance, a question about the differences between GPL
and LGPL is pretty easy.  A report of a violation in binary firmware is
not.  Context once again.  Satisfaction?  We work with a lot of people.
 I have not heard many complaints.

Of course, in the context of understanding the specifics of the AGPL the
primary contact should be Brett over at FSF.

>> PS: Off-topic, but would you chaps be willing to help out with some
>> practical licence usage questions I have?  Sort of little market survey.
> 
> I would, but I think FSF would class me as off-message for
> documents-as-software and web applications... and probably GPLv3 too now.

I'm interested in people's perspectives.  I'll contact you off-list in
the near future when I have the questions ready.  Thanks.

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan@...
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

headers

David Gerard | 21 Nov 20:54

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On 21/11/2007, Shane Martin Coughlan <coughlan@...> wrote:

> As for the response time, resolution time and satisfaction rate, you
> would have to ask the FSF licensing team.

I've sent two licence questions to the FSF licensing team;  one took
three months to get an answer on (and in fact resulted in the software
whose licence I was wondering about getting relicensed) and the other
took two months (and was "we can't provide a quick answer, read the
text of the licence" - this being the GFDL).

So, in my experience, suggesting people email licensing@... is
equivalent to saying "go away and don't bother me for at least two
months." Which is unfortunate.

If you disagree, then I look forward to actual statistics.

- d.

headers

Shane Martin Coughlan | 21 Nov 21:09

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

David Gerard wrote:
> So, in my experience, suggesting people email licensing@... is
> equivalent to saying "go away and don't bother me for at least two
> months." Which is unfortunate.

Well it's certainly not what I am suggesting David :)  My point is that
where you have distinct questions regarding the new AGPL it makes sense
to try and get an answer from the draftees of the text itself.

The release of a new licence inevitably brings questions and concerns.
I'd like to see specific concerns addressed as fully as possible.  My
guess is that most things will boil down to a handful of questions that
would hopefully end up answered on the GPL FAQ sooner rather than later,
thus allowing the maximum possible amount of people to benefit from the
information.

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan@...
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

headers

Shane Martin Coughlan | 21 Nov 21:14

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Suggestion:

How about we make a list of concerns that people have and I email Brett
Smith with them?  That way we consolidate the concerns into one
submission and potentially speed up the process of obtaining answers.
MJ, Sam, perhaps you could coordinate the list of questions.

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan@...
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 11:09

Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Shane Martin Coughlan wrote, On 21/11/07 20:14:

Suggestion: How about we make a list of concerns that people have and I email Brett Smith with them? That way we consolidate the concerns into one submission and potentially speed up the process of obtaining answers. MJ, Sam, perhaps you could coordinate the list of questions.

Thanks for this good suggestion.

I volunteer to coordinate a list of questions or points that ought to be expressed on a GPL FAQ or informational page.

Submitters may add comments on:
http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84

or may email me directly or reply to this thread with the subject line beginning: Questions / Concepts GPL
mailto:sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org?subject=Questions%20/%20Concepts%20GPL

In coordinating such comments I may add links to them to the page at http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84

My personal proposal is the creation of a list of implications of choosing a specific license to help prospective licensors choose (or avoid) a license according to their requirements.

My proposed implication is:

The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution chain.

With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution chain, derived works may have certain additional restrictions added, thus licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an original contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his own work, he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of those enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions of the AGPL.

If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may prefer to use the GPL2.

I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.

Sam

<div>
* Shane Martin Coughlan wrote, On 21/11/07 20:14:
<blockquote cite="mid:474491AF.1050502@..." type="cite">
  Suggestion:

How about we make a list of concerns that people have and I email Brett
Smith with them?  That way we consolidate the concerns into one
submission and potentially speed up the process of obtaining answers.
MJ, Sam, perhaps you could coordinate the list of questions.

  
</blockquote>
Thanks for this good suggestion.<br><br>
I volunteer to coordinate a list of questions or points that ought to
be expressed on a GPL FAQ or informational page.<br><br>
Submitters may add comments on:<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a><br><br>
or may email me directly or reply to this thread with the subject line
beginning: Questions / Concepts GPL<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:sam@...?subject=Questions%20/%20Concepts%20GPL">mailto:sam@...?subject=Questions%20/%20Concepts%20GPL</a><br><br>
In coordinating such comments I may add links to them to the page at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a><br><p>My personal proposal is the creation of a
list of implications of choosing a specific license to help prospective
licensors choose (or avoid) a license according to their requirements.</p>
<p>My proposed implication is:</p>
<div>The GPL is widely considered a <span>share-alike</span> license where licensors
have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the
distribution chain.
<p>With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution
chain, derived works may have certain additional restrictions added,
thus licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an
original contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his
own work, he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of
those enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions
of the AGPL. </p>
<p>If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may
prefer to use the GPL2.</p>
</div>
<p>I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because
ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of
extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.</p>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 13:50

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Sam Liddicott <sam@...> writes:
> The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
> understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
> chain.

You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
argument against AGPL compatibility.

Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

Are you really against additional requirements?

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

David Gerard | 22 Nov 13:59

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On 22/11/2007, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> Sam Liddicott <sam@...> writes:

> > The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
> > understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
> > chain.

> You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
> argument against AGPL compatibility.
> Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
> requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
> Are you really against additional requirements?

He's describing the licence.

You appear (from this reply, verging on personal vilification) not to
wish people to note loud and clear that GPLv3 allows additional
requirements - which it clearly does. This appears unfortunate at
best.

- d.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 14:37

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


"David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:
> You appear (from this reply, verging on personal vilification) not to
> wish people to note loud and clear that GPLv3 allows additional
> requirements

Quite the opposite.  I was trying to note loud and clear that section 7
indeed allows additional requirements, and that they can be a good thing.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Alex Hudson | 22 Nov 14:09

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Sam Liddicott <sam@...> writes:
> > The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
> > understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
> > chain.
> 
> You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
> argument against AGPL compatibility.
> 
> Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
> requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I
can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
+ Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.

I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of
restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you
couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima,
effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a
grant of permission.

That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with
other popular license.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 14:33

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> writes:
The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution chain.
You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an argument against AGPL compatibility. Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3 + Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of. I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima, effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a grant of permission. That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with other popular license.

My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3 software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with AGPL software.

Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?

It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would try a similar but more restrictive clause;

I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of another license.

Sam

<div>
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195736998.3022.58.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@...">&lt;sam@...&gt;</a> writes:

    <blockquote type="cite">
      The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
chain.

    </blockquote>
    You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
argument against AGPL compatibility.

Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

  </blockquote>

Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I
can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
+ Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.

I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of
restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you
couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima,
effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a
grant of permission.

That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with
other popular license.

</blockquote>
My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3
software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with
AGPL software.<br><br>
Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?<br><br>
It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would
try a similar but more restrictive clause; <br><br>
I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
another license.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 16:25

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09: 
> > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> >   
> > > Sam Liddicott &lt;sam@...&gt; writes:
> > >     
> > > > The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
> > > > understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
> > > > chain.
> > > >       
> > > You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
> > > argument against AGPL compatibility.
> > > 
> > > Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
> > > requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
> > >     
> > 
> > Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I
> > can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
> > + Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.
> > 
> > I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of
> > restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you
> > couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima,
> > effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a
> > grant of permission.
> > 
> > That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with
> > other popular license.
> >   
> My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3
> software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with
> AGPL software.

No it adds requirements, no restrictions on what users can do, just
requirements when they are done with it.

Let's use the right words please.

> Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?

I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.

> It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would
> try a similar but more restrictive clause; 

And how this would be relevant?

> I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
> another license.

In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or
combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when
combined remains under the GPLv3.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 16:36

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:25:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> writes:
The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution chain.
You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an argument against AGPL compatibility. Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3 + Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of. I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima, effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a grant of permission. That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with other popular license.
My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3 software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with AGPL software.
No it adds requirements, no restrictions on what users can do, just requirements when they are done with it. Let's use the right words please.
Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?
I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.

Would you say it added requirements then? (I guess you knew what I meant)

It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would try a similar but more restrictive clause;
And how this would be relevant?

Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.

I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of another license.
In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when combined remains under the GPLv3.

The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:

I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements on use of software governed by another license.

if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL software to provide a web service.
I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.

If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3 software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.

Thanks what I meant.

Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting conditional distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be AGPL such a term, it restricts use regardless of distribution. Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:25:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    * Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 13:09: 

    <blockquote type="cite">
      On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 12:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

      
      <blockquote type="cite">
        Sam Liddicott &amp;lt;sam@...&amp;gt; writes:

        
        <blockquote type="cite">
          The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
chain.

          
        </blockquote>
        You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
argument against AGPL compatibility.

Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

        
      </blockquote>
      Are you sure about that? I don't see anywhere in the GPLv3 which says I
can attach extra restrictions in Apache licenses to GPLv3'd code. GPLv3
+ Apache doesn't have further restrictions on the GPL that I'm aware of.

I think the point is that the GPL always set a maximum level of
restriction, and although you could lessen them (e.g., LGPL), you
couldn't add to them. That has now changed: the AGPL is the maxima,
effectively, and the GPLv3 could be simply written as the AGPL plus a
grant of permission.

That's not the same as designing the basic license to be compatible with
other popular license.

      
    </blockquote>
    My current understanding is that the AGPL puts restrictions on GPL3
software when and for as long as that GPL3 software is combined with
AGPL software.

  </blockquote>

No it adds requirements, no restrictions on what users can do, just
requirements when they are done with it.

Let's use the right words please.

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    Please could some kind soul confirm this understanding?

  </blockquote>

I don't think you can say AGPL add restrictions, no.

  
</blockquote>
Would you say it added requirements then? (I guess you knew what I
meant)<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    It leaves me wondering if the next release of Microsoft Windows would
try a similar but more restrictive clause; 

  </blockquote>

And how this would be relevant?

  
</blockquote>
Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195745148.15342.181.camel@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
another license.

  </blockquote>

In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or
combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when
combined remains under the GPLv3.

</blockquote>
The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal
concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:<br><br>
I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements
on use of software governed by another license.<br><br>
if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not
distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL
software to provide a web service.<br>
I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.<br><br>
If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3
software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.<br><br>
Thanks what I meant.<br><br>
Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting conditional
distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be AGPL such a
term, it restricts use regardless of distribution. Is this based on
copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13
affect non-distributing service providers?<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 18:05

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
> supposedly fixed terms of past licenses. 

Until you keep thinking of licenses as *sacred text* you won't go far.

Licenses are *means* for a goal.
Licenses are not and cannot be immutable.
Licenses *change* to adapt to new threats and changed legal frameworks.

> > > I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
> > > another license.
> > >     
> > 
> > In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or
> > combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when
> > combined remains under the GPLv3.
> >   
> The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal
> concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:
> 
> I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra
> requirements on use of software governed by another license.

The GPLv3 *explicitly* allows these new requirements by the wording it
used, it's not like an unrelated license can add new requirements.

> if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not
> distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL
> software to provide a web service.

Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.
I totally understand your point, and I, personally, do not like much
AGPL and will probably not use it, but this provision make sense if you
look at the goals of a copyleft license which are to let users be able
to get the source code of what they *use*.

And you can't claim they are not *using* your software.

> I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.

You have to recognize that SaaS is different from traditional software.
you, as a distributor may not like AGPL, well then, don't use it. It's
perfectly understandable. But you distribute your software already so
it's not a big deal for you and your users, they can always get it.

> If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3
> software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.

As I said you are free to see a requirement as a restriction, it is all
about point of view. Many BSD believers see all GPL requirements as
restrictions, they are not right nor wrong, they simply have a different
point of view.

> Thanks what I meant.

That was very clear to me :)

> Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting
> conditional distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be
> AGPL such a term, it restricts use regardless of distribution.

It really depends on what you consider distribution.

> Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the
> software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?

Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define
distribution in the digital age.

If you stream music from an internet radio station, are they just
*using* the music? Or are they distributing it to you? In traditional
terms that would be broadcasting, except that on the internet it can
very well ber unicast.

When your application sends down javascript or flash or even just
html/css code snippets, are you *using* that software or *distributing*
it?

The answer is not simple at all, AGPL has one answer, GPL has the other
one, that's why it make sense they both exist.

Once this is accepted, whether you like AGPL or not, then the matter is:
is it so bad that GPLv3 can be used by such projects?

Again the answer is not simple at all, and probably really depends on
what is your main field of interest. Yours is obviously the more
controversial (web apps), and that's why the matter is so important to
you.

I think a very important consideration is how much probable it is for an
AGPL project to be successful. So far I know (I am ignorant tho) of no
really successful AGPL based projects. And given that most people really
do not like AGPL too much, I think the possibility of AGPL becoming a
problem for most people is almost irrelevant. It is a theoretical
possibility yes, does it warrant all the fuss? I think no, I think it
should just be one of the things you know and keep in the back of your
mind.

Now a good question (imo of course) is this: what would FSF think of a
GPLv3 license where the author indicates that the AGPL clause is
evicted? Would that license be still compatible with normal GPLv3
software? Would that make it more acceptable to you?

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 18:17

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:05:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.
Until you keep thinking of licenses as *sacred text* you won't go far. Licenses are *means* for a goal. Licenses are not and cannot be immutable. Licenses *change* to adapt to new threats and changed legal frameworks.

I don't understand what perception you have that has caused you to say this or why you imagine I think of them as sacred text.

I just don't like this specific change. I was a GPL3 fan until I realised this implication.

it's not a general problem.

I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of another license.
In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when combined remains under the GPLv3.
The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words: I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra requirements on use of software governed by another license.
The GPLv3 *explicitly* allows these new requirements by the wording it used, it's not like an unrelated license can add new requirements.

That is *specifically* why I don't like it the GPL3.
But I don't see that the GPL3 needs to *explicitly* allow this.
I think the AGPL would "work" as designed even if the GPL3 did not explicitly allow it.

if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL software to provide a web service.
Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.

But is it considered so under copyright law?

I totally understand your point, and I, personally, do not like much AGPL and will probably not use it, but this provision make sense if you look at the goals of a copyleft license which are to let users be able to get the source code of what they *use*. And you can't claim they are not *using* your software.

No, but I can (and do claim) that what many license adaptors have considered "user" to mean does not include users of services provided by the software. Mostly because they never considered it before.

I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.
You have to recognize that SaaS is different from traditional software.

I do.

you, as a distributor may not like AGPL, well then, don't use it. It's perfectly understandable. But you distribute your software already so it's not a big deal for you and your users, they can always get it.

I don't use it. But GPL3/13 means I don't use GPL3 either, and I wish I could.

If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3 software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.
As I said you are free to see a requirement as a restriction, it is all about point of view.

and not about a word. It's the obligation that concerns me not what you call it.

Many BSD believers see all GPL requirements as restrictions, they are not right nor wrong, they simply have a different point of view.

I know. They simply use a different word.

Thanks what I meant.
That was very clear to me :)
Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting conditional distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be AGPL such a term, it restricts use regardless of distribution.
It really depends on what you consider distribution.

It really depends on what the enforcers of copyright law in a particular jurisdiction consider distribution.

Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?
Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define distribution in the digital age.

and, the same for the word "user" I feel.

If you stream music from an internet radio station, are they just *using* the music? Or are they distributing it to you? In traditional terms that would be broadcasting, except that on the internet it can very well ber unicast.

well put.

When your application sends down javascript or flash or even just html/css code snippets, are you *using* that software or *distributing* it?

indeed

The answer is not simple at all, AGPL has one answer, GPL has the other one, that's why it make sense they both exist.

and this is why it also looks like (to so many) that the FSF may be changing core values, because they came down on the wrong side of a difficult and complex question.

Once this is accepted, whether you like AGPL or not, then the matter is: is it so bad that GPLv3 can be used by such projects?

I want them to use it, I just want modifications to the GPL3 part to be GPL3 licensed. Thats why I propose the AGPL link-exception alternative to GPL3/13

Again the answer is not simple at all, and probably really depends on what is your main field of interest. Yours is obviously the more controversial (web apps), and that's why the matter is so important to you.

yep

I think a very important consideration is how much probable it is for an AGPL project to be successful. So far I know (I am ignorant tho) of no really successful AGPL based projects. And given that most people really do not like AGPL too much, I think the possibility of AGPL becoming a problem for most people is almost irrelevant. It is a theoretical possibility yes, does it warrant all the fuss? I think no, I think it should just be one of the things you know and keep in the back of your mind.

I think that in an FSF mailing list it is very important to consider how probable it is that a license will be accepted.

Now a good question (imo of course) is this: what would FSF think of a GPLv3 license where the author indicates that the AGPL clause is evicted? Would that license be still compatible with normal GPLv3 software? Would that make it more acceptable to you?

I think I'll pick this up in your answer to "pleasant solution", and thanks for being pleasant.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:05:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
supposedly fixed terms of past licenses. 

  </blockquote>

Until you keep thinking of licenses as *sacred text* you won't go far.

Licenses are *means* for a goal.
Licenses are not and cannot be immutable.
Licenses *change* to adapt to new threats and changed legal frameworks.

</blockquote>
I don't understand what perception you have that has caused you to say
this or why you imagine I think of them as sacred text.<br><br>
I just don't like this specific change. I was a GPL3 fan until I
realised this implication.<br><br>
it's not a general problem.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
another license.

        
      </blockquote>
      In fact this does not happen. The *requirement* is only for AGPL or
combined works with the AGPL. But the work under GPLv3 even when
combined remains under the GPLv3.

      
    </blockquote>
    The fact that you use the word requirement doesn't change my internal
concern, it just makes me repeat it using different words:

I don't like the idea that one license can add place extra
requirements on use of software governed by another license.

  </blockquote>

The GPLv3 *explicitly* allows these new requirements by the wording it
used, it's not like an unrelated license can add new requirements.

</blockquote>
<br>
That is *specifically* why I don't like it the GPL3.<br>
But I don't see that the GPL3 needs to *explicitly* allow this.<br>
I think the AGPL would "work" as designed even if the GPL3 did not
explicitly allow it.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    if it works as I understand, then as a USER of GPL3 software (not
distributor) I have to provide it's source if I use it with AGPL
software to provide a web service.

  </blockquote>

Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.

</blockquote>
But is it considered so under copyright law?<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  I totally understand your point, and I, personally, do not like much
AGPL and will probably not use it, but this provision make sense if you
look at the goals of a copyleft license which are to let users be able
to get the source code of what they *use*.

And you can't claim they are not *using* your software.

</blockquote>
No, but I can (and do claim) that what many license adaptors have
considered "user" to mean does not include users of services provided
by the software. Mostly because they never considered it before.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.

  </blockquote>

You have to recognize that SaaS is different from traditional software.

</blockquote>
I do.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  you, as a distributor may not like AGPL, well then, don't use it. It's
perfectly understandable. But you distribute your software already so
it's not a big deal for you and your users, they can always get it.

</blockquote>
I don't&nbsp; use it. But GPL3/13 means I don't use GPL3 either, and I wish
I could.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    If so, then the AGPL is putting extra restrictions on my USE of GPL3
software by requiring that I meet the requirements of another license.

  </blockquote>

As I said you are free to see a requirement as a restriction, it is all
about point of view. 
</blockquote>
and not about a word. It's the obligation that concerns me not what you
call it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  Many BSD believers see all GPL requirements as
restrictions, they are not right nor wrong, they simply have a different
point of view.

  
</blockquote>
I know. They simply use a different word.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    Thanks what I meant.

  </blockquote>

That was very clear to me :)

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    Previous licenses have been based on copyright, by granting
conditional distribution rights, but section 13 of the seems not to be
AGPL such a term, it restricts use regardless of distribution.

  </blockquote>

It really depends on what you consider distribution.

</blockquote>
It really depends on what the enforcers of copyright law in a
particular jurisdiction consider distribution.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the
software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?

  </blockquote>

Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define
distribution in the digital age.

</blockquote>
and, the same for the word "user" I feel.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">

If you stream music from an internet radio station, are they just
*using* the music? Or are they distributing it to you? In traditional
terms that would be broadcasting, except that on the internet it can
very well ber unicast.

  
</blockquote>
well put.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  When your application sends down javascript or flash or even just
html/css code snippets, are you *using* that software or *distributing*
it?

  
</blockquote>
indeed<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  The answer is not simple at all, AGPL has one answer, GPL has the other
one, that's why it make sense they both exist.

</blockquote>
and this is why it also looks like (to so many) that the FSF may be
changing core values, because they came down on the wrong side of a
difficult and complex question.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">

Once this is accepted, whether you like AGPL or not, then the matter is:
is it so bad that GPLv3 can be used by such projects?

  
</blockquote>
I want them to use it, I just want modifications to the GPL3 part to be
GPL3 licensed. Thats why I propose the AGPL link-exception alternative
to GPL3/13<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  Again the answer is not simple at all, and probably really depends on
what is your main field of interest. Yours is obviously the more
controversial (web apps), and that's why the matter is so important to
you.

  
</blockquote>
yep<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">
  I think a very important consideration is how much probable it is for an
AGPL project to be successful. So far I know (I am ignorant tho) of no
really successful AGPL based projects. And given that most people really
do not like AGPL too much, I think the possibility of AGPL becoming a
problem for most people is almost irrelevant. It is a theoretical
possibility yes, does it warrant all the fuss? I think no, I think it
should just be one of the things you know and keep in the back of your
mind.

</blockquote>
I think that in an FSF mailing list it is very important to consider
how probable it is that a license will be accepted.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@..." type="cite">

Now a good question (imo of course) is this: what would FSF think of a
GPLv3 license where the author indicates that the AGPL clause is
evicted? Would that license be still compatible with normal GPLv3
software? Would that make it more acceptable to you?

</blockquote>
I think I'll pick this up in your answer to "pleasant solution", and
thanks for being pleasant.<br><br>
Sam<br><br>
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 19:15

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.
> >   
> But is it considered so under copyright law? 

Believe it or not it is hard to tell for me.
For example you should first say "which" copyright law 
And even then I am sure the language is so vague it needs judicial
interpretation.

> No, but I can (and do claim) that what many license adaptors have
> considered "user" to mean does not include users of services provided
> by the software. Mostly because they never considered it before. 

I am not sure about that, but you probably know more than me about "web
apps". I'll just notice that many web sites not connected to free
software tend to have "use terms, or use conditions" so I think it is
understood that users of web services are indeed "users".

> > It really depends on what you consider distribution.
> >   
> It really depends on what the enforcers of copyright law in a
> particular jurisdiction consider distribution. 

Yeah, very difficult to say, and that's what I meant with "you".

> > > Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the
> > > software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?
> > >     
> > 
> > Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define
> > distribution in the digital age.
> >   
> and, the same for the word "user" I feel. 

Definitely, in US law the term "use" is often so vague.

> > The answer is not simple at all, AGPL has one answer, GPL has the other
> > one, that's why it make sense they both exist.
> >   
> and this is why it also looks like (to so many) that the FSF may be
> changing core values, because they came down on the wrong side of a
> difficult and complex question. 

"changing core values" depends on what you think they are, I don't think
they are changing anything.

> > Once this is accepted, whether you like AGPL or not, then the matter is:
> > is it so bad that GPLv3 can be used by such projects?
> > 
> >   
> I want them to use it, I just want modifications to the GPL3 part to
> be GPL3 licensed. Thats why I propose the AGPL link-exception
> alternative to GPL3/13 

I believe the license already mean what you would like it to be, I asked
for advice, we will se what the FSF thinks.

> I think that in an FSF mailing list it is very important to consider
> how probable it is that a license will be accepted. 

Yes, how probable you think it is AGPL will be accepted and used?

> > Now a good question (imo of course) is this: what would FSF think of a
> > GPLv3 license where the author indicates that the AGPL clause is
> > evicted? Would that license be still compatible with normal GPLv3
> > software? Would that make it more acceptable to you?
> >   
> I think I'll pick this up in your answer to "pleasant solution", and
> thanks for being pleasant.

I feel like you in many respects except I don't think the main purpose
of the FSF is to subvert the Free Software core values, but to protect
them against new threats and preserve them in new environments 

Simo.

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 20:01

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> I think a very important consideration is how much probable it is for an
> AGPL project to be successful. So far I know (I am ignorant tho) of no
> really successful AGPL based projects. [...]

How about http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ ?
Over 3.9 million users seems pretty successful to me.

I'm surprised that a member of a GPL drafting committees[*] was not
told where the AGPL is currently causing problems when being asked to
review a GPL that adds compatibility with it.  Weren't the committees
given briefings on the current use of these licences?  Didn't they ask?

[*] Message-Id: <1195755474.15342.282.camel@...>

> [...] It is a theoretical
> possibility yes, does it warrant all the fuss? [...]

This is more than a theoretical problem, so yes.

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> I surrender, you clearly master English better than me, and I can't try
> to use rhetoric with such a big handicap, you will always find an easy
> way to turn what I say to your advantage.

Maybe instead of trying "to use rhetoric" or surrendering, it would be
helpful to address the concerns or explain the reasons?  Just a
suggestion.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 22 Nov 20:53

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 19:01 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

> I'm surprised that a member of a GPL drafting committees[*] was not
> told where the AGPL is currently causing problems when being asked to
> review a GPL that adds compatibility with it.  Weren't the committees
> given briefings on the current use of these licences?  Didn't they ask?

I am replying to this only because you keep trying to put the drafting
process in bad light since its inception.

I said that *I* didn't pay much attention to it. Your implications about
a faulty drafting process are mere speculation in bad faith.

So long.

headers

MJ Ray | 23 Nov 11:10

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 19:01 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm surprised that a member of a GPL drafting committees[*] was not
> > told where the AGPL is currently causing problems when being asked to
> > review a GPL that adds compatibility with it.  Weren't the committees
> > given briefings on the current use of these licences?  Didn't they ask?
[...]
> I said that *I* didn't pay much attention to it. Your implications about
> a faulty drafting process are mere speculation in bad faith.

If FSF didn't brief the GPL drafting committees, then it'd make me
wonder why they were kept in the dark about this major change to GPL.
If they did and you just ignored it, fair enough.  I don't know what
happened, so I asked questions.  I don't mean implications, I mean
questions.  I'm disappointed if you won't answer.

Nevertheless, if you didn't pay much attention to it, then you should
not suggest that we're over-estimating "how much probable it is for an
AGPL project to be successful".  Don't claim AGPL is an irrelevance if
you actually have no idea of its current scale, let alone the
problem's probable future scale after this latest fanfare from FSF.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 14:52

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
>> Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
>> requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
>
> Are you sure about that?

I'm certainly not an expert on this issue, but it looks like sections 4c and
4d of the AL have attribution requirements that aren't in GPLv3 and which
make compatibility thus rely on the "additional requirements" provision of
GPLv3's section 7b.  No?

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Alex Hudson | 22 Nov 15:36

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 13:52 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> >> Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
> >> requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
> 
> I'm certainly not an expert on this issue, but it looks like sections 4c and
> 4d of the AL have attribution requirements that aren't in GPLv3 and which
> make compatibility thus rely on the "additional requirements" provision of
> GPLv3's section 7b.  No?

I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D

Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
web-quine.

That's the difference. Any additional restriction in the Apache license
must be matched by similar language in the GPLv3 for it to work. The
AGPL restriction, which has no such similar language in the GPLv3, only
works because the AGPL has preferential status. You can't add additional
restrictions beyond those the GPL sets out, unless you're the AGPL.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 22 Nov 16:06

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > it looks like sections 4c and 4d of the AL have attribution requirements
> > that aren't in GPLv3 and which make compatibility thus rely on the
> > "additional requirements" provision of GPLv3's section 7b.  No?
>
> I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D

Yes.

GPLv3 allows additional requirements to be added.  It does this in two
ways: sections 7 and 13.

If we all agree that Apache compatibility is good, then we can move past the
argument that AGPL compatibility is bad simply because it involves
additional requirements.

> Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> web-quine.
>
> That's the difference.

Not really.  The mechanics of how additional requirements get added isn't
important.  The important thing is whether the allowed additional
requirements are acceptable.

If there were no "web-quine" licences that the GPLv3 drafters wanted GPLv3
to be compatible with, then it would have been a waste to put effort into
genericising the wording that allows AGPL compatibility.

Trying to genericise section 13 so that it could be in section 7 would also
have needlessly delayed GPLv3 by up to five months.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

simo | 22 Nov 16:28

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:06 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > > it looks like sections 4c and 4d of the AL have attribution requirements
> > > that aren't in GPLv3 and which make compatibility thus rely on the
> > > "additional requirements" provision of GPLv3's section 7b.  No?
> >
> > I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D
> 
> Yes.
> 
> GPLv3 allows additional requirements to be added.  It does this in two
> ways: sections 7 and 13.
> 
> If we all agree that Apache compatibility is good, then we can move past the
> argument that AGPL compatibility is bad simply because it involves
> additional requirements.

Well said.

> > Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> > supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> > there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> > web-quine.
> >
> > That's the difference.
> 
> Not really.  The mechanics of how additional requirements get added isn't
> important.  The important thing is whether the allowed additional
> requirements are acceptable.
> 
> If there were no "web-quine" licences that the GPLv3 drafters wanted GPLv3
> to be compatible with, then it would have been a waste to put effort into
> genericising the wording that allows AGPL compatibility.
> 
> Trying to genericise section 13 so that it could be in section 7 would also
> have needlessly delayed GPLv3 by up to five months.

People that claim having followed the GPLv3 drafting should remember
that such provision were initially going to be in GPLv3. They were
removed later because people thought it was too much to give out a broad
permission to add a web-quine requirement and instead mentioning
explicitly one blessed license to do that was preferred.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 16:50

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:28:
> People that claim having followed the GPLv3 drafting should remember
> that such provision were initially going to be in GPLv3. They were
> removed later because people thought it was too much to give out a broad
> permission to add a web-quine requirement and instead mentioning
> explicitly one blessed license to do that was preferred.
>   
One hole is certainly better than a broad gash, but the passengers may
still prefer not to sail.

It doesn't make me feel any better to know that it is an FSF approved
license that would be used without my permission on my work.

(Of course the GPL3 would grant the permission which is why I won't use it)

Sam

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 17:05

Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.

I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ?

So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who
modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me
give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.

And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various
others; as well as being AGPL friendly.

If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to
propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly.

Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to
part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full
linking.

It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care
if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in
fact I'd like it.

Sam

headers

simo | 22 Nov 18:12

Re: Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ?
> 
> So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who
> modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me
> give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.

A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3.

> And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various
> others; as well as being AGPL friendly.
> 
> If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to
> propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly.
> 
> Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to
> part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full
> linking.

I think that provision means what you would like it to mean.
But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses.
I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point.

> It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care
> if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in
> fact I'd like it.

I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it
differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I
think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but
clarification is indeed needed.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 18:20

Re: Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:12:

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ? So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.
A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3.

GPL3/13 and AGPL suggest otherwise to my reading.
The GPL3 work could become an AGPL work and any changes thus also AGPL, refusing their entry back into the GPL3 work

I wish I were wrong.

And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various others; as well as being AGPL friendly. If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly. Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full linking.
I think that provision means what you would like it to mean. But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses. I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point.

thank-you.
Are you a drafter?

It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in fact I'd like it.
I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but clarification is indeed needed.

thankyou.

I agree it is rare, but if it is to be adopted it must be understood and trusted.

Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after they have licensed their software.

It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if the license was not understood.

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:12:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751559.15342.253.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ?

So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who
modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me
give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.

  </blockquote>

A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3.

</blockquote>
<br>
GPL3/13 and AGPL suggest otherwise to my reading.<br>
The GPL3 work could become an AGPL work and any changes thus also AGPL,
refusing their entry back into the GPL3 work<br><br>
I wish I were wrong.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751559.15342.253.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various
others; as well as being AGPL friendly.

If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to
propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly.

Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to
part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full
linking.

  </blockquote>

I think that provision means what you would like it to mean.
But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses.
I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point.

</blockquote>
<br>
thank-you.<br>
Are you a drafter?<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195751559.15342.253.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care
if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in
fact I'd like it.

  </blockquote>

I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it
differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I
think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but
clarification is indeed needed.

</blockquote>
thankyou.<br><br>
I agree it is rare, but if it is to be adopted it must be understood
and trusted.<br><br>
Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after
they have licensed their software.<br><br>
It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if
the license was not understood.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 22 Nov 19:17

Re: Pleasant solution: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL.


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:20 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:12: 
> > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:05 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >   
> > > I suppose the GPL3 is compatible with GPL3 minus part 13 ?
> > > 
> > > So if I added an AGPL link permission to GPL3-part13, AGPL users who
> > > modify (rather than link to) my work will not have the power to make me
> > > give to service users the source to my work combined with their patches.
> > >     
> > 
> > A patch to a GPLv3 work must me under the GPLv3.
> >   
> 
> GPL3/13 and AGPL suggest otherwise to my reading.
> The GPL3 work could become an AGPL work and any changes thus also
> AGPL, refusing their entry back into the GPL3 work
> 
> I wish I were wrong.

I hope you are 

> > > And yet it would still be compatible with Apache, GPL3 and various
> > > others; as well as being AGPL friendly.
> > > 
> > > If only part 13 considered that rights-holders might not want to
> > > propagate AGPL enforcements and yet might still want to be AGPL friendly.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps their ought to be an "AGPL link exception" alternative to
> > > part13; if you deny license upgrades to AGPL you at least permit full
> > > linking.
> > >     
> > 
> > I think that provision means what you would like it to mean.
> > But I may be wrong or the wording may make it difficult to asses.
> > I will ask fellow drafters to explain this point.
> >   
> 
> thank-you.
> Are you a drafter?

I have been in one of the committees, but I didn't consider much this
provision, unfortunately.

> > > It needn't affect the GPL3-source requirement of the AGPL, I don't care
> > > if AGPL service providers have to give out the full GPL3 source too, in
> > > fact I'd like it.
> > >     
> > 
> > I *think* this is what provision 13 is *meant* to do, I guess we see it
> > differently and now I understand a bit more your concerns, even if I
> > think AGPL usage will be so rare it is not really that important, but
> > clarification is indeed needed.
> >   
> thankyou.
> 
> I agree it is rare, but if it is to be adopted it must be understood
> and trusted.

Sure.

> Licensors must be sure that the apparent meaning will not change after
> they have licensed their software.

Unfortunately you can never be 100% sure, but intent matters too
sometimes, so clarification for the FSF would be good. 

> It may become a legal point whether or not it was actually licensed if
> the license was not understood.

Law admits no ignorance they say, but this is not true in all legal
system I understand.

Simo.

headers

Alex Hudson | 22 Nov 16:41

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:06 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> > supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> > there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> > web-quine.
> >
> > That's the difference.
> 
> Not really.  The mechanics of how additional requirements get added isn't
> important.  The important thing is whether the allowed additional
> requirements are acceptable.
> 
> If there were no "web-quine" licences that the GPLv3 drafters wanted GPLv3
> to be compatible with, then it would have been a waste to put effort into
> genericising the wording that allows AGPL compatibility.
> 
> Trying to genericise section 13 so that it could be in section 7 would also
> have needlessly delayed GPLv3 by up to five months.

That doesn't really fit with how the GPLv3 was developed. The AGPL
web-quine stuff *was* in section 7, it only got moved out in draft 3.

So clearly the mechanics _are_ actually important :D

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 16:18

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 14:36:
>
> I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D
>
> Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> web-quine.
>
> That's the difference. Any additional restriction in the Apache license
> must be matched by similar language in the GPLv3 for it to work. The
> AGPL restriction, which has no such similar language in the GPLv3, only
> works because the AGPL has preferential status. You can't add additional
> restrictions beyond those the GPL sets out, unless you're the AGPL.
>   
Does this mean the the AGPL is effectively an "or later version" back
door for people who don't choose the "or later version" suffix? (If
there is even such an "or later version" for GPL3)

Sam

headers

simo | 22 Nov 19:20

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:18 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * Alex Hudson wrote, On 22/11/07 14:36:
> >
> > I think you've answered your own question - it is in the GPLv3, in 7b :D
> >
> > Section 7 enumerates some specific, limited, requirements that you can
> > supplement the GPLv3 with. The AGPL is treated completely specially:
> > there is no specific enumeration of the single requirement for a
> > web-quine.
> >
> > That's the difference. Any additional restriction in the Apache license
> > must be matched by similar language in the GPLv3 for it to work. The
> > AGPL restriction, which has no such similar language in the GPLv3, only
> > works because the AGPL has preferential status. You can't add additional
> > restrictions beyond those the GPL sets out, unless you're the AGPL.
> >   
> Does this mean the the AGPL is effectively an "or later version" back
> door for people who don't choose the "or later version" suffix? (If
> there is even such an "or later version" for GPL3)

Yes there is an or later for GPLv3 it is necessary, without it it would
be a nightmare to re-license to GPLv4 10 years from now.

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 14:27

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Ciaran O'Riordan wrote, On 22/11/07 12:50:

Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> writes:
The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution chain.
You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an argument against AGPL compatibility. Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code. Are you really against additional requirements

I don't mind that the GPL3 itself has additional requirements to the GPL2.

I understood (correctly I hope) that equivalent patent requirements of the apache license are part of the GPL3 license and so that licensors do not actively "add" the requirements of the apache license to the GPL3. Clause 9 of the apache license is not a restriction on use as such merely prevents liability from passing beyond the bounds of those who profit.

Supplementary terms a-f in section 7 of GPL3 do not trouble me; they are all fair terms, which given infinite foresight could have been coded explicitly in the GPL3, but lack of such foresight in different legal realms requires this flexibility; those terms do not materially change the restrictions of the GPL3 in my mind. Those terms help licensors to be able to *actually* get the benefits which the GPL should provide.

I'm against people being able to add additional requirements to the work already licensed by me, by converting from GPL3 to AGPL.

However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.

So I thank Ciaran (and also Simo's efforts) because I now realise that the AGPL / GPL3 compatability effort which I knew about has not somehow (behind my back) added an extra clause to the GPL3.

And so, my brief opposition to the GPL3 has been successfully quelled, I find nothing objectionable in it.

I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3 licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination.

I realise that Simo tried to point that out, but in my state of confusion did not understand.

So.... I am back to what I originally thought, the AGPL is a seperate license which applies the benefits of the AGPL license to GPL3 software when used with the said AGPL software. I have no problem with that.

So.. thanks - and sorry for causing so much noise.

Sam

<div>
* Ciaran O'Riordan wrote, On 22/11/07 12:50:
<blockquote cite="mid:9ltzne30mu.fsf@..." type="cite">
  Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@...">&lt;sam@...&gt;</a> writes:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    The GPL is widely considered a share-alike license where licensors have
understood that the same terms will propagate throughout the distribution
chain.

  </blockquote>

You're presenting an argument against additional requirements as being an
argument against AGPL compatibility.

Apache licence compatibility was achieved by allowing people to add the
requirements of Apached licensed code to GPLv3 licensed code.

Are you really against additional requirements
</blockquote>
I don't mind that the GPL3 itself has additional requirements to the
GPL2.<br><br>
I understood (correctly I hope) that equivalent patent requirements of
the apache license are part of the GPL3 license and so that licensors
do not actively "add" the requirements of the apache license to the
GPL3. Clause 9 of the apache license is not a restriction on use as
such merely prevents liability from passing beyond the bounds of those
who profit. <br><br>
Supplementary terms a-f in section 7 of GPL3 do not trouble me; they
are all fair terms, which given infinite foresight could have been
coded explicitly in the GPL3, but lack of such foresight in different
legal realms requires this flexibility; those terms do not materially
change the restrictions of the GPL3 in my mind. Those terms help
licensors to be able to *actually* get the benefits which the GPL
should provide. <br><br>
I'm against people being able to add additional requirements to the
work already licensed by me, by converting from GPL3 to AGPL.<br><br>
However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3
confused yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of
the AGPL was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise).
I thought the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.<br><br>
So I thank Ciaran (and also Simo's efforts) because I now realise that
the AGPL / GPL3 compatability effort which I knew about has not somehow
(behind my back) added an extra clause to the GPL3.<br><br>
And so, my brief opposition to the GPL3 has been successfully quelled,
I find nothing objectionable in it. <br><br>
I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3
licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for
the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination.<br><br>
I realise that Simo tried to point that out, but in my state of
confusion did not understand.<br><br>
So.... I am back to what I originally thought, the AGPL is a seperate
license which applies the benefits of the AGPL license to GPL3 software
when used with the said AGPL software. I have no problem with that.<br><br>
So.. thanks - and sorry for causing so much noise.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

MJ Ray | 22 Nov 14:42

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Sam Liddicott <sam@...> wrote:
> However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused
> yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL
> was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought
> the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.

If you are referring to the quotation by Ciaran O'Riordan in
Message-Id: <9labp793zq.fsf%40vorcha.compsoc.com>
then that is indeed from the GPL, not the AGPL.  (It was headed "Use
with the GNU Affero General Public License" while the AGPL section 13
is titled "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public
License.") => GPL3 itself seems to permit upgrading to the AGPL.

> I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3
> licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for
> the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination. [...]

No, enhancements to your GPL3 work may be licensed under the GPL3 or
the AGPL3, depending on various things.

Is this why the question-gathering page previously linked as
http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84
seems to have vanished?

Puzzled,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 14:50

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* MJ Ray wrote, On 22/11/07 13:42:

Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.
If you are referring to the quotation by Ciaran O'Riordan in Message-Id: <9labp793zq.fsf%40vorcha.compsoc.com> then that is indeed from the GPL, not the AGPL. (It was headed "Use with the GNU Affero General Public License" while the AGPL section 13 is titled "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.") => GPL3 itself seems to permit upgrading to the AGPL.

er yess. darn it.

I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3 licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination. [...]
No, enhancements to your GPL3 work may be licensed under the GPL3 or the AGPL3, depending on various things. Is this why the question-gathering page previously linked as http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84 seems to have vanished?

it is still there, I hope, I have not vanished it.

Puzzled,

darn, not more than I am! I feel a fool as well as look like one. Agagghahgh.

So... whether or not I like the GPL3 right-now-at-this-instant :-)

really depends on the meaning of "combination".

If I take the meaning which I think Simo referred to yesterday, it means separate but linked interacting modules; i.e. not a patch to my work.
e.g. a CMS that uses my template system distributed in one package, in which any patches to the template system MUST be licensed GPL3.

However reading again section 13 from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

it seems like even that may not be the case.

So.... I don't apologize for apologizing, but I thank MJ for putting me right again.

(shakes head at reflection sadly)

Sam

<div>
* MJ Ray wrote, On 22/11/07 13:42:
<blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@..." type="cite">
  Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@...">&lt;sam@...&gt;</a> wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    However, I owe a few people an apology, I got the AGPL and GPL3 confused
yesterday, and thought that the quotation from section 13 of the AGPL
was taken from the GPL (which is why it took me by surprise). I thought
the GPL3 itself was permitting upgrading of licenses to AGPL.

  </blockquote>

If you are referring to the quotation by Ciaran O'Riordan in
Message-Id: &lt;9labp793zq.fsf%40vorcha.compsoc.com&gt;
then that is indeed from the GPL, not the AGPL.  (It was headed "Use
with the GNU Affero General Public License" while the AGPL section 13
is titled "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public
License.") =&gt; GPL3 itself seems to permit upgrading to the AGPL.

  
</blockquote>
er yess. darn it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    I realise that any enhancements made to my GPL3 works will be GPL3
licensed even if they are by the same author of the AGPL work and for
the benefit of the combined GPL3/AGPL combination. [...]

  </blockquote>

No, enhancements to your GPL3 work may be licensed under the GPL3 or
the AGPL3, depending on various things.

Is this why the question-gathering page previously linked as
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84">http://www.liddicott.com/~sam/?p=84</a>
seems to have vanished?

  
</blockquote>
it is still there, I hope, I have not vanished it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:4745875e.L2emFgw18tADbf8I%25mjr@..." type="cite">
  Puzzled,

</blockquote>
darn, not more than I am! I feel a fool as well as look like one.
Agagghahgh.<br><br>
So... whether or not I like the GPL3 right-now-at-this-instant 
really depends on the meaning of "combination".<br><br>
If I take the meaning which I think Simo referred to yesterday, it
means separate but linked interacting modules; i.e. not a patch to my
work.<br>
e.g. a CMS that uses my template system distributed in one package, in
which any patches to the template system MUST be licensed GPL3.<br><br>
However reading again section 13 from:<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html</a><br><br>
it seems like even that may not be the case.<br><br>
So.... I don't apologize for apologizing, but I thank MJ for putting me
right again. <br><br>
(shakes head at reflection sadly)<br><br>
Sam
</div>

headers

list | 22 Nov 14:36

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb Sam Liddicott:

> With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution chain,
> derived works may have certain additional restrictions added, thus
> licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an original
> contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his own work,
> he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of those
> enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions of the
> AGPL.
> 
> If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may prefer to
> use the GPL2.
> 
> I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because
> ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of
> extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.

Oh, that is anything but unexpected for someone, who followed the
drafting process.
Section 7 of GPLv3 allowed some additional restrictions right from 
draft 1. Actually those additional restrictions were softened later.

--

-- 
AKFoerster

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 14:41

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* list-wcjLjw6O4QLddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org wrote, On 22/11/07 13:36:

Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution chain, derived works may have certain additional restrictions added, thus licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an original contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his own work, he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of those enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions of the AGPL. If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may prefer to use the GPL2. I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.
Oh, that is anything but unexpected for someone, who followed the drafting process. Section 7 of GPLv3 allowed some additional restrictions right from draft 1. Actually those additional restrictions were softened later.

GPL3, Section 7, optional terms a-f are nothing like the extra restriction of the AGPL.

The extra restrictions of the AGPL are part of the AGPL alone, and as far I as I can see, GPL3 makes no explicit recognition that such terms could be permanent according to the GPL3.

GPL3, 10 says: "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."

However, I guess, removal of that AGPL term is without effect if the work stays combined with the AGPL work, or rather, would breach the AGPL.

Sam

<div>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:list@...">list@...</a> wrote, On 22/11/07 13:36:
<blockquote cite="mid:20071122133650.GA13934@..." type="cite">
  Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb Sam Liddicott:

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    With the GPL3 this is not true: at some time in the distribution chain,
derived works may have certain additional restrictions added, thus
licensing the combined work under the AGPL such that when an original
contributor receives the derived work with enhancements to his own work,
he may not distribute any combination of his work with any of those
enhancements unless he does so with the additional restrictions of the
AGPL.

If the licensor finds this disparity objectionable then he may prefer to
use the GPL2.

I believe that this implication is not widely understood and because
ealier versions of the GPL are widely known to prohibit the addition of
extra restrictions, this implication is also unexpected.

  </blockquote>

Oh, that is anything but unexpected for someone, who followed the
drafting process.
Section 7 of GPLv3 allowed some additional restrictions right from 
draft 1. Actually those additional restrictions were softened later.

</blockquote>
GPL3, Section 7, optional terms a-f are nothing like the extra
restriction of the AGPL.<br><br>
The extra restrictions of the AGPL are part of the AGPL alone, and as
far I as I can see, GPL3 makes no explicit recognition that such terms
could be permanent according to the GPL3.<br><br>
GPL3, 10 says: "If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term."<br><br>
However, I guess, removal of that AGPL term is without effect if the
work stays combined with the AGPL work, or rather, would breach the
AGPL.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Sam Liddicott | 22 Nov 15:00

Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Sam Liddicott wrote, On 22/11/07 13:41:

* list-wcjLjw6O4QLddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org wrote, On 22/11/07 13:36:
Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb Sam Liddicott: Oh, that is anything but unexpected for someone, who followed the drafting process. Section 7 of GPLv3 allowed some additional restrictions right from draft 1. Actually those additional restrictions were softened later.
GPL3, Section 7, optional terms a-f are nothing like the extra restriction of the AGPL.

OK, section 13. Back to yesterdays opinion, I hadn't realised the implications and I should have.

I think I'll state less and ask more...

Sam

<div>
* Sam Liddicott wrote, On 22/11/07 13:41:
<blockquote cite="mid:47458702.8030706@..." type="cite">

* <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:list@...">list@...</a> wrote, On
22/11/07 13:36:
  <blockquote cite="mid:20071122133650.GA13934@..." type="cite">
    Am Thursday, dem 22. Nov 2007 schrieb Sam Liddicott:

Oh, that is anything but unexpected for someone, who followed the
drafting process.
Section 7 of GPLv3 allowed some additional restrictions right from 
draft 1. Actually those additional restrictions were softened later.

  </blockquote>
GPL3, Section 7, optional terms a-f are nothing like the extra
restriction of the AGPL.<br>
</blockquote>
OK, section 13. Back to yesterdays opinion, I hadn't realised the
implications and I should have.<br><br>
I think I'll state less and ask more...<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Matt Lee | 22 Nov 01:05

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray wrote:

> It's usually faster and more verifiable when it works, though.  What's
> licensing <at> fsf's current response time, resolution time and enquirer
> satisfaction rate?

I don't know about satisfaction rate, but bear in mind this is
Thanksgiving weekend - so nobody's going to be back until Monday now :)

-- 
Matt Lee (mattl at fsf dot org)
Campaigns Manager, Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/

          Support our work - http://donate.fsf.org/

MJ Ray wrote:

> It's usually faster and more verifiable when it works, though.  What's
> licensing <at> fsf's current response time, resolution time and enquirer
> satisfaction rate?

I don't know about satisfaction rate, but bear in mind this is
Thanksgiving weekend - so nobody's going to be back until Monday now :)

--

-- 
Matt Lee (mattl at fsf dot org)
Campaigns Manager, Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/

          Support our work - http://donate.fsf.org/

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 13:28

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Sam Liddicott <sam@...> writes:
> And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL you
> add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by the
> GPL.

Section 13 of GPLv3 prevents this problem:

  13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission
  to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3
  of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and
  to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to
  apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements
  of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning
  interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

> [...] the GFDL mess.

The upcoming version of the GFDL is still being drafted.  Please submit
comments - including negative ones there (in addition to here, if you like;
I'm not trying to push criticism off this list).

http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 15:39

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* Ciaran O'Riordan wrote, On 21/11/07 12:28:

Sam Liddicott <sam-zQGKLn5Wc3Lby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> writes:
And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL you add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by the GPL.
Section 13 of GPLv3 prevents this problem: 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements as I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.

[...] the GFDL mess.
The upcoming version of the GFDL is still being drafted. Please submit comments - including negative ones there (in addition to here, if you like; I'm not trying to push criticism off this list). http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html

Thanks for the tip.

I'm against the old invariant clause as it can be used to permit others to add obnoxious texts to enhancements of my work, in a way such that the obnoxious text deters me from using the enhanced work; thus they effectively (in my eyes) add restrictions to prevent me distributing the new work.

I do not know if the new GFDL has such a clause.

Whether or not these various licenses are good, what is clear is that FSF has gone beyond the bounds of the problem that united everyone, and as members splinter it finds that those members (as Basho encourages) were following the principles of the FSF, not the FSF itself.

GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else, lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to the FSF.

Sam

<div>
* Ciaran O'Riordan wrote, On 21/11/07 12:28:
<blockquote cite="mid:9labp793zq.fsf@..." type="cite">
  Sam Liddicott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@...">&lt;sam@...&gt;</a> writes:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    And therefore you can't mix GPL with AGPL; because if you move to AGPL you
add additional requirements to the GPL'd code which is forbidden by the
GPL.

  </blockquote>

Section 13 of GPLv3 prevents this problem:

  13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission
  to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3
  of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and
  to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to
  apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements
  of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning
  interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

</blockquote>
<br>
I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my
work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements as
I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:9labp793zq.fsf@..." type="cite">

  <blockquote type="cite">
    [...] the GFDL mess.

  </blockquote>

The upcoming version of the GFDL is still being drafted.  Please submit
comments - including negative ones there (in addition to here, if you like;
I'm not trying to push criticism off this list).

<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html">http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html</a>

</blockquote>
Thanks for the tip.<br><br>
I'm against the old invariant clause as it can be used to permit others
to add obnoxious texts to enhancements of my work, in a way such that
the obnoxious text deters me from using the enhanced work; thus they
effectively (in my eyes) add restrictions to prevent me distributing
the new work. <br><br>
I do not know if the new GFDL has such a clause.<br><br>
Whether or not these various licenses are good, what is clear is that
FSF has gone beyond the bounds of the problem that united everyone, and
as members splinter it finds that those members (as Basho encourages)
were following the principles of the FSF, not the FSF itself.<br><br>
GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else,
lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to the
FSF.<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 21 Nov 15:54

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:39 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my
> work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements
> as I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.

> GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else,
> lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to
> the FSF.

And the trolling vs GPLv3 starts again, hurrah ...

I was just waiting for this kind of message, I've skipped almost the
whole discussion, because from message 0 I knew that someone would have
gone up to here.

Congratulations...

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 15:59

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 14:54:

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:39 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements as I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.

GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else, lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to the FSF.
And the trolling vs GPLv3 starts again, hurrah ... I was just waiting for this kind of message, I've skipped almost the whole discussion, because from message 0 I knew that someone would have gone up to here.

Could you explain how I am trolling?

I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3 opponent.

(And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I did follow the process).

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 14:54:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195656884.15342.72.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:39 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my
work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements
as I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.

  </blockquote>

  
  <blockquote type="cite">
    GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else,
lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to
the FSF.

  </blockquote>

And the trolling vs GPLv3 starts again, hurrah ...

I was just waiting for this kind of message, I've skipped almost the
whole discussion, because from message 0 I knew that someone would have
gone up to here.

</blockquote>
Could you explain how I am trolling?<br><br>
I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3 opponent.<br><br>
(And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I did
follow the process).<br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

simo | 21 Nov 16:23

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:59 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * simo wrote, On 21/11/07 14:54: 
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:39 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >   
> > > I am now against GPL3 because others may promote enhancements to my
> > > work as AGPL thus deterring me from benefiting from the enhancements
> > > as I often won't always want to meet the burden of the AGPL.
> > >     
> > 
> >   
> > > GPL2 served me. GPL3 opposes me. I don't mind it serving someone else,
> > > lets see how many of those it serves decide to pay subscriptions to
> > > the FSF.
> > >     
> > 
> > And the trolling vs GPLv3 starts again, hurrah ...
> > 
> > I was just waiting for this kind of message, I've skipped almost the
> > whole discussion, because from message 0 I knew that someone would have
> > gone up to here.
> >   
> Could you explain how I am trolling?

I find it evident, the first thing I commented is false, the second too,
as a license cannot oppose anything, a license is just a tool.

> I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3
> opponent.

I am glad you will stop using my software, maybe my bandwidth too ? 

> (And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I
> did follow the process).

Maybe because you should think and reason around the license and not
jump on the first bump emotionally ?

True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? You can't
"relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an
existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. In
that case you can combine the 2 and the AGPL clause can kick in, big
deal.

What scares you so much about that?
That someone can take your work *under the GPLv3* and combine it with
some AGPLv3 stuff and release a web app? Wow, and how is that going to
make *your* life miserable, or that of the *users* of that service?

You are assuming that:
a) some of your work can be combined with a web app.
b) someone is interested in using it
c) someone is interested in pissing you off by using it and release your
work combined with AGPLv3
d) someone is so bad that will not let you have anything useful back
under the GPLv3 because they simply despise someone that allowed them to
finish their work
e) anything that is useful for that web app is really something you want
back.

Now you are giving this remote possibility so much importance that it
makes you flip completely from "a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine
GPL3 opponent".
I am just glad I do not have to work with people like that, they may
find they can't work with me because I decided to wear a differently
colored shirt for a chance... no shades of gray in your world I guess...

Simo.

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 16:31

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:23:

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:59 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

Could you explain how I am trolling?
I find it evident, the first thing I commented is false, the second too, as a license cannot oppose anything, a license is just a tool.

it was a literary device, and somehow you knew what I meant.

I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3 opponent.
I am glad you will stop using my software, maybe my bandwidth too ? #

no, why?

(And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I did follow the process).
Maybe because you should think and reason around the license and not jump on the first bump emotionally ?

I think it's because I got lax through re-reading things that didn't change much.

True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what?

Thats the point. It's "so what to you" but not to me.

You can't "relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. In that case you can combine the 2 and the AGPL clause can kick in, big deal. What scares you so much about that?

nothing

That someone can take your work *under the GPLv3* and combine it with some AGPLv3 stuff and release a web app? Wow, and how is that going to make *your* life miserable, or that of the *users* of that service?

it's not.
But it creates a disparity of commitment and expectation with ME.

If I did use GPL3, then I can't re-use the AGPL enhancements under the same terms under I'm willing to let others use my work, simply because I'm not willing to let others add the extra AGPL restriction. So GPL3 is (by definition) the wrong license for me.

You are assuming that: a) some of your work can be combined with a web app.

Yes, I wrote a nice html object oriented templating system that compiles html to a hierachy of subclassable php classes.

b) someone is interested in using it

yes, they keep downloading it

c) someone is interested in pissing you off by using it and release your work combined with AGPLv3

or they want to combine it with another work that is already AGPL

d) someone is so bad that will not let you have anything useful back under the GPLv3 because they simply despise someone that allowed them to finish their work

the extra enhancements are not all theirs

e) anything that is useful for that web app is really something you want back.

it will be too late then, won't it.

Now you are giving this remote possibility so much importance that it makes you flip completely from "a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3 opponent".

yes. To you it's remote because you don't know me and don't care.

To me it's real which is why it's worth talking about.

I talk about things because they matter to me. I don't censor my views or concerns through an emulation of you.

I am just glad I do not have to work with people like that, they may find they can't work with me because I decided to wear a differently colored shirt for a chance... no shades of gray in your world I guess...

How many shades of grey do you have in your copyright law?

Sam

<div>
* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:23:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:59 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
<br>Could you explain how I am trolling?

  </blockquote>

I find it evident, the first thing I commented is false, the second too,
as a license cannot oppose anything, a license is just a tool.

</blockquote>
<br>
it was a literary device, and somehow you knew what I meant.<br><br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    I've just gone from a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine GPL3
opponent.

  </blockquote>

I am glad you will stop using my software, maybe my bandwidth too ? #

</blockquote>
no, why?<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    (And I'm wondering how I missed the AGPL section in the GPL3 'cos I
did follow the process).

  </blockquote>

Maybe because you should think and reason around the license and not
jump on the first bump emotionally ?

</blockquote>
I think it's because I got lax through re-reading things that didn't
change much.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">

True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? 
</blockquote>
Thats the point. It's "so what to you" but not to me.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  You can't
"relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an
existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. In
that case you can combine the 2 and the AGPL clause can kick in, big
deal.

What scares you so much about that?

</blockquote>
nothing<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  That someone can take your work *under the GPLv3* and combine it with
some AGPLv3 stuff and release a web app? Wow, and how is that going to
make *your* life miserable, or that of the *users* of that service?

</blockquote>
it's not.<br>
But it creates a disparity of commitment and expectation with ME.<br><br>
If I did use GPL3, then I can't re-use the AGPL enhancements under the
same terms under I'm willing to let others use my work, simply because
I'm not willing to let others add the extra AGPL restriction. So GPL3
is (by definition) the wrong license for me.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">

You are assuming that:
a) some of your work can be combined with a web app.

</blockquote>
Yes, I wrote a nice html object oriented templating system that
compiles html to a hierachy of subclassable php classes.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  b) someone is interested in using it

</blockquote>
yes, they keep downloading it<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  c) someone is interested in pissing you off by using it and release your
work combined with AGPLv3

</blockquote>
or they want to combine it with another work that is already AGPL<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  d) someone is so bad that will not let you have anything useful back
under the GPLv3 because they simply despise someone that allowed them to
finish their work

</blockquote>
the extra enhancements are not all theirs<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  e) anything that is useful for that web app is really something you want
back.

</blockquote>
it will be too late then, won't it.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">

Now you are giving this remote possibility so much importance that it
makes you flip completely from "a genuine GPL3 supporter to a genuine
GPL3 opponent".

</blockquote>
yes. To you it's remote because you don't know me and don't care.<br><br>
To me it's real which is why it's worth talking about.<br><br>
I talk about things because they matter to me. I don't censor my views
or concerns through an emulation of you.<br><blockquote cite="mid:1195658604.15342.94.camel@..." type="cite">
  I am just glad I do not have to work with people like that, they may
find they can't work with me because I decided to wear a differently
colored shirt for a chance... no shades of gray in your world I guess...

</blockquote>
How many shades of grey do you have in your copyright law?<br><br><br><br>
Sam<br>
</div>

headers

Sam Liddicott | 21 Nov 18:33

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Well... I reviewed my notes and I *did* notice the AFL clause, I just
didn't realise all it's implications.

I didn't mind it giving end _users_ the rights to the source, but I
hadn't realised the possibility of creating a share inequality by
possibly requiring me to receive enhancements under tighter obligations
than which I had originally shared under.

Such are the intricacies, and I should have noticed.

So... I still don't like the GPL3 now and that's a shame.

Ah well.

Sam

headers

simo | 21 Nov 18:53

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 17:33 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Well... I reviewed my notes and I *did* notice the AFL clause, I just
> didn't realise all it's implications.
> 
> I didn't mind it giving end _users_ the rights to the source, but I
> hadn't realised the possibility of creating a share inequality by
> possibly requiring me to receive enhancements under tighter obligations
> than which I had originally shared under.
> 
> Such are the intricacies, and I should have noticed.
> 
> 
> So... I still don't like the GPL3 now and that's a shame.

Now *this* is reasoning and not hand waving, keep making this sort of
comments, and not the others, it's much better, short and to the point.

Simo.

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 16:34

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote: [...]
> True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? You can't
> "relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an
> existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. [...]

Erm, you can take an existing work under the GPLv3 and combine it with
a new one under the AGPLv3, can't you?

/me checks http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Yep, nothing seems to limit clause 13 to an *existing* work.
Did I miss something?

By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 16:46

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
> so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?

I should first point out that it's very unlikely that an AGPL-specific
update will be required.  For one reason, there're only two paragraphs of
AGPL-specific text.  For another, at a guess (barring major changes in
technology usage which might make the AGPL a really good idea), the AGPL
will only be used by a handful of projects.

But, in this very unlikely event, if the harm is worth the effort, FSF can
start working on a GPLv4 or 3.1.

(And knowing that FSF will update the licences if any exploits are found
decreases the value of looking for exploits.)

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

simo | 21 Nov 18:58

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote: [...]
> > True you can combine the GPLv3 work with AGPLv3, so what? You can't
> > "relicense" under AGPL, you can only combine works. It means you need an
> > existing work under the GPLv3 and and existing one under the AGPL. [...]
> 
> Erm, you can take an existing work under the GPLv3 and combine it with
> a new one under the AGPLv3, can't you?
> 
> /me checks http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> 
> Yep, nothing seems to limit clause 13 to an *existing* work.
> Did I miss something?
> 
> By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
> so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?

I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x
before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added
requirement. If you use GPLv3 only, then ooops, you are in the same
troubles GPLv2 only people are now wrt GPLv3, nothing can be done about
that, license compatibility between strong copylef licenses can be
achieved only by explicit permission and that has to be put into the new
*and* the old license. That's why the FSF promotes the "or later"
clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later,
without the need to re-license. If you keep strict ownership of the work
you don;t have this problem of course.
Others will as they will have to beg you to make your stuff compatible
with the new version, but this is the nature of copyright, nothing that
can be solve in a license (except by dropping copyleft and being just
liberal).

Simo.

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 19:03

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
> > so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?
>
> I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x
> before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added
> requirement. [...]

Unless the added requirement is shown to be fluffed.  Needing a new
GPL to fix a problem in AGPL's AGPL-specific parts seems like a bug.

> That's why the FSF promotes the "or later"
> clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later,
> without the need to re-license.

Yes, that one thing that makes it so surprising that FSF didn't use an
"or later" clause in the licence!

So if a .1 of either licence appears, GPL/AGPL-mixes have to wait
until all constituent projects have bumped to .1 - like the current
GPL/LGPL 2/3 messes, but possibly worse.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

simo | 21 Nov 19:30

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?


On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:03 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3,
> > > so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out?  Oops?
> >
> > I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x
> > before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added
> > requirement. [...]
> 
> Unless the added requirement is shown to be fluffed.  Needing a new
> GPL to fix a problem in AGPL's AGPL-specific parts seems like a bug.
> 
> > That's why the FSF promotes the "or later"
> > clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later,
> > without the need to re-license.
> 
> Yes, that one thing that makes it so surprising that FSF didn't use an
> "or later" clause in the licence!
> 
> So if a .1 of either licence appears, GPL/AGPL-mixes have to wait
> until all constituent projects have bumped to .1 - like the current
> GPL/LGPL 2/3 messes, but possibly worse.
> 

This is one reason why AGPL will not be too much widespread, luckily.

Simo.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 13:24

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> Why should AGPL be on the acceptable side of the line?

This is a judgement call the free software community will have to make.

For me, adding requirements and inconveniences to free software licences is
acceptable when they're the minimum necessary to ensure that all future
users have the four freedoms.

> Huh?  Can I take code from an non-free/AGPL'd web app and put it into
> a free/GPL'd web app without having to move to AGPL?

I don't see the confusion.

Can you mix GPL and AGPL code without changing the licence of the GPL'd
code?  Of course, yes.

Can you disribute a combined GPL+AGPL project under just the GPL?  Of course
not.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 13:46

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 12:24 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > Why should AGPL be on the acceptable side of the line?
> 
> This is a judgement call the free software community will have to make.
> 
> For me, adding requirements and inconveniences to free software licences is
> acceptable when they're the minimum necessary to ensure that all future
> users have the four freedoms.

This sounds a really trolly question, so I apologise in advance :) How
do you square freedom zero with your previous statement about
restricting public use to those people willing to distribute source?

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 14:11

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> This sounds a really trolly question, so I apologise in advance :) How
> do you square freedom zero with your previous statement about
> restricting public use to those people willing to distribute source?

*You* can use AGPL'd code for any purpose, but making it available for
others to use is not *you* using it for a purpose, so it's not a freedom
zero issue.

The practice of "making it available for others to use" is more similar to
"giving copies to others", which the GPL has always attached requirements
to.

no?

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

David Gerard | 21 Nov 14:15

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On 21/11/2007, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:

> *You* can use AGPL'd code for any purpose, but making it available for
> others to use is not *you* using it for a purpose, so it's not a freedom
> zero issue.

But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra things.

I don't see how this isn't a usage restriction.

- d.

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 14:29

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

"David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:
> But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra
> things.

You have to do extra things because you made the software publicly
available.

Putting it on a server for others isn't a "use" by you any more than putting
a CD of the software in somebody elses hands is.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

David Gerard | 21 Nov 15:19

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On 21/11/2007, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> "David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:

> > But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra
> > things.

> You have to do extra things because you made the software publicly
> available.

You mean, if you "use" it in the only meaningful sense?

This still feels far too much like sophistry.

- d.

headers

Alex Hudson | 21 Nov 14:36

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 13:11 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > This sounds a really trolly question, so I apologise in advance :) How
> > do you square freedom zero with your previous statement about
> > restricting public use to those people willing to distribute source?
> 
> *You* can use AGPL'd code for any purpose, but making it available for
> others to use is not *you* using it for a purpose, so it's not a freedom
> zero issue.
> 
> The practice of "making it available for others to use" is more similar to
> "giving copies to others", which the GPL has always attached requirements
> to.

I guess this definition of "user" is actually the nub of it.

As a specific example, let's say I have a web content management system
which is licensed under the AGPL. 

I would be relatively happy to say that people managing websites using
that CMS would be "users": for example, if a business takes the CMS,
makes interesting modifications and sells access to that software, I can
see the reasoning for making source available to those people who've
bought access.

However, I don't see that visitors to the websites being managed by the
CMS are "users" - they're viewing the output of the CMS for sure, and
interacting with it in a limited way, but not much more than that.
Providing a potentially multi-megabyte download to any of those users
could be a real pain: e.g., OpenCMS (it's not AGPL, but..) is almost
40Mb to download.

AGPL covers both situations. It comes down to this: if I put PDFs on my
website, people aren't entitled to my OpenOffice.org. But people
accessing my HTML are entitled to my AGPL'd CMS. The "user" is the same
in both IMHO.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 14:59

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> Alex Hudson <home@...> writes:
> > This sounds a really trolly question, so I apologise in advance :) How
> > do you square freedom zero with your previous statement about
> > restricting public use to those people willing to distribute source?
>
> *You* can use AGPL'd code for any purpose, but making it available for
> others to use is not *you* using it for a purpose, so it's not a freedom
> zero issue.
>
> The practice of "making it available for others to use" is more similar to
> "giving copies to others", which the GPL has always attached requirements
> to.
>
> no?

No, the GPL hasn't always attached requirements to "making it
available for others to use".  GPLv2 even forbids attaching such
requirements IIRC.  GPLv3 seems to allow them by mixing with AGPLv3.

Batch processing services predate the GPL and I used to have access to
applications through high performance computing services batch
processing at university, but the GPL didn't place additional
restrictions on them.  I shudder to think how expensive they would
have been if each user could have demanded the source from the HPC
service in the same medium as the results.  At best, I think HPC would
have needed restructuring to cope with such licence terms.

The internet doesn't really change this landscape - it just makes
such remote processing services easier and faster.

Personally, I object to the limit on the freedom to adapt the program
to our needs (freedom one) rather than the freedom to run as an ASP.

But then, attaching onerous extras to useful output happened in the
GNU FDL too, so I guess we could see that FSF were heading in the
wrong direction long before the AGPLv3 added a non-free exit to the
GPL.

Ciaran claimed that whether AGPL is a free software licence "is a
judgement call the free software community will have to make" - does
this mean the FSF will not require its projects to accept the AGPL or
require them to allow AGPL-compatibility?

Does anyone think that FDL's acceptability has been left entirely to
the free software community?  I'm expecting FSF to continue using its
leadership's disproportionate weight to get AGPL accepted by a wide
audience, despite probably being another non-free-software licence.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Nov 15:25

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> No, the GPL hasn't always attached requirements to "making it
> available for others to use".

I didn't say it did.

I said that X was "more similar" to Y than it is to Z.  I didn't say X == Y.

> Ciaran claimed that [...] does this mean the FSF will [...]?

(Note: I don't work for FSF or set policy for GNU.  FSFE and FSF are
independent in terms of management, staff, and finances.)

FWIW, barring a change in technology or in the way people use computers and
networks, I don't think that AGPL will be a widely used licence, so I don't
see any big GFDL-sized controversies coming.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 15:46

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > No, the GPL hasn't always attached requirements to "making it
> > available for others to use".
>
> I didn't say it did.
>
> I said that X was "more similar" to Y than it is to Z.  I didn't say X == Y.

OK, I've misunderstood: so you only meant to say that viewing the
output of some software is more similar to getting a copy than to
running it?  That's not a whole lot more credible IMO.

> > Ciaran claimed that [...] does this mean the FSF will [...]?
>
> (Note: I don't work for FSF or set policy for GNU.  FSFE and FSF are
> independent in terms of management, staff, and finances.)

Noted.  FSFE seems a bit more talkative and transparent, so sorry if
we sometimes try to pump FSFE for information on what the hell FSF are
thinking when they appear to do utterly counter-productive things.

> FWIW, barring a change in technology or in the way people use computers and
> networks, I don't think that AGPL will be a widely used licence, so I don't
> see any big GFDL-sized controversies coming.

I hope it's not widely-used, but the AGPLv2 already caused enough pain
and I'm already seeing the FSF Media Monster going into overdrive
promoting this, with misdirecting claims like that no developers will
be forced to use it.  OK, maybe not forced, but our choice on
encountering a AGPL'd program that we'd like to adapt will be to avoid
that software - if one GPL web app now goes AGPLv3 (particularly if it
goes GPLv2+->GPLv3->AGPL), FSF has harmed our development.

Also, all developers must now regard the GPLv3 as no longer a strong
copyleft unless they delete/revoke the AGPL-friendly clause.  The one
thing that worried some developers enough that they published under
GPL2-only rather than "or later" has happened!

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

MJ Ray | 21 Nov 11:35

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

list@... wrote:
> Am Monday, dem 19. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:
> > People should cooperate voluntarily - you can adjust the
> > balance and encourage it, but forced sharing is not true cooperation,
> > because it breaks the principle of voluntary membership.
>
> So, you are against "Copyleft" licenses in general?

No.  I'm happy to adjust the balance and encourage sharing like that.

> The AGPL is imho just an extended Copyleft.

Perhaps, but is it still a free software licence?  I don't think
Copyleft should be extended into output restrictions.  AGPL goes
beyond acceptable attribution into unacceptable required features.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

headers

Alfred M. Szmidt | 23 Nov 23:19

Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?

   > The AGPL is imho just an extended Copyleft.

   Perhaps, but is it still a free software licence?  

Ofcourse it is, the four software freedoms can still be exercised.
That is what defines a free software license after all.