<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 17:05:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Because the FSF would lead the way in a future license subverting the
supposedly fixed terms of past licenses.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't like the idea that one license can restrict the terms of
another license.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The GPLv3 *explicitly* allows these new requirements by the wording it
used, it's not like an unrelated license can add new requirements.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
But is it considered so under copyright law?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I used to have to provide the source only if I distributed it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You have to recognize that SaaS is different from traditional software.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I do.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't 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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As I said you are free to see a requirement as a restriction, it is all
about point of view. </pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Many BSD believers see all GPL requirements as
restrictions, they are not right nor wrong, they simply have a different
point of view.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I know. They simply use a different word.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks what I meant.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That was very clear to me :)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It really depends on what you consider distribution.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the
software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define
distribution in the digital age.
</pre>
</blockquote>
and, the same for the word "user" I feel.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
well put.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When your application sends down javascript or flash or even just
html/css code snippets, are you *using* that software or *distributing*
it?
</pre>
</blockquote>
indeed<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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?
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
yep<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195751121.15342.247.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</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@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think I'll pick this up in your answer to "pleasant solution", and
thanks for being pleasant.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>