Showing comments in file 'agplv3-draft-1' [rss] [see on license]
( found 36, showing newest 1-36: ) search
you could login

GPLv3

# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3292: test orion


Regarding the text: General Public Licenses are intended
In section: agplv3.preamble.p1.s2
Submitted by: orion on 2007-06-07 at 05:42 EDT
0 agree:
noted by orion on 2007-06-07 at 05:42 EDT:

orion testing

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3339: Policy, not mechanism


Regarding the text: an opportunity
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: gerv on 2007-06-11 at 12:16 EDT
1 agree: flaschen
noted by gerv on 2007-06-11 at 12:16 EDT:

I like this formulation of the requirement over several other previous formulations (including the rather nasty one in the current Affero GPL) because it specifies policy, not mechanism. In other words, it requires that something must be done but not how to do it.

I therefore believe that this clause should not be considered a restriction on modification, and so fits with FSF Freedom 1, DFSG 3, and OSD 3 and 10.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3343: how far does this go?


Regarding the text: all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: oliva on 2007-06-11 at 13:38 EDT
3 agree: flaschen, larhzu, orra
noted by oliva on 2007-06-11 at 13:38 EDT:

Say, if I were to release a kernel under GAGPLv3, would any user of say an http server or a proxy server running on top of such kernel and using services of such kernel entitle the remote users to obtain the source code of the kernel?

Along the same lines, how easy is this to circumvent? E.g., if I insert layers between the user and the GAGPLv3 software, so as to be able to claim that the user is not interacting with the software, and the software only interacts with other local processes, never through the network, can I escape from these requirements?

I miss some guidelines for interpretation of the goals of this clause, such that different people don't legitimately come to very different conclusions as to the meaning of this clause. It doesn't have to be part of the license itself, but I think there ought to be some authoritative guidelines, examples, and so on, to try to draw the line somewhat clearly on what kinds of interactions require the offer of corresponding source code, and which don't.

noted by larhzu on 2007-06-13 at 09:10 EDT:

In my opinion, kernels and proxy servers don't have interactive user interfaces, thus they can *never* be affected by the AGPL-specific section.

Libraries are problematic, because one can have e.g. web-app libraries, which are a major part of the Program as a whole, but still don't have any interactive user interface. See also the comment 2828: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-3&id=2828


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3349: Useful condition?


Regarding the text: if you modify the Program
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: flaschen on 2007-06-11 at 21:44 EDT
0 agree:
noted by flaschen on 2007-06-11 at 21:44 EDT:

The advantage to this is that it is less burdensome to service providers who do not modify the Affero code. The disadvantages are that it makes it more difficult for end users to find the relevant original source code, and that it is inconsistent with the GNU GPL. I think it's worth the slight end user inconvenience, but I'm not sure.
noted by flaschen on 2007-06-11 at 21:46 EDT:

But this is really only an issue if the original developer doesn't include a source mechanism (if they do it can only be removed through modification, which will trigger the requirement); I suppose most Affero programs will have such a mechanism in the original version.
noted by gerv on 2007-06-12 at 05:11 EDT:

I believe that the requirement is conditioned on modification because the FSF accepts that merely running a program privately does not require copyright permission. The license can only require things of you if you want to do something which needs copyright permission. BICBW.
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-08-05 at 22:59 EDT:

/ I believe that the requirement is conditioned on modification because the FSF accepts that merely running a program privately does not require copyright permission. The license can only require things of you if you want to do something which needs copyright permission. BICBW. /

I expect you mean running a program /publicly/. I have heard this before, but it seems that many software companies do not believe it to be true. And even if it is true in the USA today, that doesn't mean it will remain true in the USA in the future, or that it is true anywhere else.

And if it turns out that some people really do have this right without having to be granted it, that doesn't make any sense as a reason for the license to grant the right.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3367: Conflicts with GPLv3-draft4


Regarding the text: your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: larhzu on 2007-06-13 at 09:34 EDT
0 agree:
noted by larhzu on 2007-06-13 at 09:34 EDT:

A person writes a GPL'd interactive front-end to AGPL'd non-interactive library. Because the combined Work is interactive, it must provide users the Corresponding Source of the AGPL'd part. In this case it would be the GPL'd front-end that would be providing the source of the AGPL'd part.

If the above is correct, it conflicts with GPLv3-draft4: GPLv3-draft4 allows only linkage with AGPLv3; no additional requirements are allowed apply from AGPL.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3368: openness of network server


Regarding the text: network server
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: cjuner on 2007-06-13 at 15:24 EDT
1 agree: jastiv
noted by cjuner on 2007-06-13 at 15:24 EDT:

Shouldn't there be a clause that demands that only network servers qualify if they use a protocol for which at least one free implementation exists or if the protocol has an open specification?

Also obtaining the source code this way should not require anything the user's interaction does not require, that is no additional passwords.

Freedom needs to be ensured.

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 23:06 EDT:

Yes, this ought to use some ideas from 6d. The server providing the source should be on the same network. i.e. If it's the Internet, source should be on the Internet too. If it's a LAN (WiFi, or whatever) or an inter-organisational WAN not connected to the Internet, then source should be available via that network.
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-02 at 08:09 EDT:

Actually, I've changed my mind--it should be modeled on 6b, not 6d, so it should use the same wording as used there.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3372: do you or does the version give the opportunity?


Regarding the text: your modified version must give
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:32 EDT
0 agree:
noted by sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:32 EDT:

Suppose I take AbiWord and make it a web service. It might be hosted as part of a larger website. The html or javascript for that larger site might be responsible for delivering the source code (e.g. with a button in a frame saying "download the source", which is a link to a tar.gz file). That structure for providing source code ought to be allowed (I think). However, the license draft is more specific and requires that "your modified version" itself provide the source code.

On second thought, maybe your wording is correct. If it were changed to "you must give...", then it could create a loophole, as follows. I take Abiword, modify it to be a web service, host it somewhere, and arrange for the provider to offer source. Now, someone else takes the source and runs it from their site unmodified. Since they did not modify it, this provision isn't in effect, and they do not need to offer source.

So, forget my rephrasing -- your drafting is correct and very elegant.

noted by larhzu on 2007-06-15 at 07:48 EDT:

I wonder if your suggestion could be improved, since I too find it problematic that the modified version itself has to make the source available. It makes no sense in case the modified version is e.g. a non-interactive library.

Usually the user interface isn't very complex part of the code (implementing an *already designed* UI), thus one could convert AGPL'd interactive application to a library form, and then write a GPL'd (not AGPL'd) user interface similar to the original one. No source would be required to make available, because the library isn't interactive, and the front-end is GPL'd: AGPL cannot require its GPL'd front-end to make the source available, since that would be additional restriction to GPL.

This kind of issues make me think that the whole idea of AGPL is quite flawed. It's either too easy to work around, or too strict to be Free Software.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3373: typo


Regarding the text: Licensingpatents
In section: agplv3.licensingpatents.0.0
Submitted by: sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:37 EDT
0 agree:
noted by sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:37 EDT:

Space needed between "Licensing" and "patents". Also, the final-call GPLv3 draft has simply "Patents" as the section name. The difference makes me wonder if there are other differences besides in section 13?

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3374: how broad is interaction?


Regarding the text: interacting
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:39 EDT
1 agree: larhzu
noted by sanjoy on 2007-06-14 at 08:39 EDT:

If, via mutt, I use a remote smtp outgoing server, am I interacting with it? Or am I interating only with mutt?

I don't know what the right answer should be from the point of view of software freedom, but I'd like to know what the answer is from the point of view of the license draft (and drafters).


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3382: More descriptive name


Regarding the text: AFFERO
In section: title.0.0
Submitted by: larhzu on 2007-06-15 at 07:29 EDT
6 agree: jamesgnz, spenceal, vbrobald, sjn, infobank, norton
noted by larhzu on 2007-06-15 at 07:29 EDT:

Couldn't the name be e.g. GNU Network General Public License? It would tell the reader that the difference to plain GPL is related to networking. Not everyone is familiar with the name Affero and how it is related to GPL.
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-06-27 at 09:45 EDT:

I suggest "GNU Affero Server Public License".

"Server" is more descriptive than "Network" since the license is not intended for network clients. And it's not actually a general license, it's server specific. And unlike the LGPL, it's not even compatible with the GPL (when it was originally named, the plan was to merge it with the GPL, but that's not happening any more), so it's better not to have it contain GPL as part of it's name. So I think "General" ought to be replaced by "Server", so "AGPL" becomes "ASPL".

noted by infobank on 2007-07-13 at 12:26 EDT:

Whatever the name, I support removing "Affero". Maybe "Network Service"?

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3398: Bad: no clear definition of remote users


Regarding the text: all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: frx on 2007-06-16 at 11:41 EDT
1 agree: larhzu
noted by frx on 2007-06-16 at 11:41 EDT:

The term "user" is not clearly defined. If I get an "access denied" error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal application, as well? Of the server-side scripting engine, perhaps? Of the web server? Of the kernel the web server runs on top of? Of the router OS? And so forth...

Where do we draw the line?

This ambiguity is really problematic, as it implies that there's no clear way to tell whether a modified version supports remote interaction, and hence there's no clear way to tell whether it is subject to the restriction specified by this section.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3401: Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it


Regarding the text: an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: frx on 2007-06-16 at 11:44 EDT
2 agree: vBrobald, jamesgnz
noted by frx on 2007-06-16 at 11:44 EDT:

This restriction compels whoever runs the modified version of the Program to accommodate the source code on the server or, alternatively, to set up and maintain a separate network server to provide source code: this may be a significant cost in some cases.

This is ultimately a use restriction (from the point of view of whoever runs the modified version of the Program) and effectively forbids private use of the modified version on a publicly accessible server. I'm *not* quite convinced that forbidding private use on a publicly accessible server should be considered as a free restriction. Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with running the modified version of the Program.

noted by beuc on 2007-06-28 at 17:07 EDT:

I do value the ability to run private modified versions of a AGPL'd software in an intranet.

This was already commented at length when this clause was part of the GPLv3, and it's quite frustrating to see that it wasn't taken into account. Probably there wasn't time to aggregate and analyse answers yet.

Personal example: I'd like to avoid somebody from running Savane (the code running Savannah) on a competing site (such as "google code" or "launchpad") without releasing the source code for his/her changes as wemm. He/she would have access to my code but not the opposite; without copyleft protection I'd feel compelled to stop releasing my code as well.

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-02 at 08:14 EDT:

Yes, cost could be a problem. This providers should be allowed to choose either to offer access via a network, or a copy on a physical medium, as per 6b.
noted by vbrobald on 2007-07-05 at 15:45 EDT:

Due to the restrictive nature of AGPL, I belive it is necessary to forbid dual licencing AGPLed software under non-fsf approved licences: AGPL puts restrictions on freedoms. If a developer chooses AGPL instead of GPL, we must ensure it is done with the preservation of end-user (the one on the other side of the network) rights in mind and not as a way to distribute the application with restricted rights in order to sell these rights later under a proprietary licence (such a situation can also creates de-facto monopolies for support). If the freedoms AGPL is trying to protect are important enough to create situations where server-side user cannot benefit software freedoms as entirely as in GPL, then it is serious enough to put restrictions to avoid this licence being used and abused as a business opportunity to sell proprietary licence.

(sorry for my poor english)

noted by savonix on 2007-07-31 at 23:57 EDT:

I disagree that this restricts private use of and interaction with software on a publicly accessible server - as long as the software is not publicly available as a service - even for a fee. There are many examples of servers which are publicly accessible, but the services they provide are not. The difference between "accessible" and "available" might be important here, in that just because a service isn't publicly accessible, doesn't mean it isn't available for a fee. Once you pay, you have access to it. This provision might be easy for people to quietly breach, but like breaching the GPL, it is a slippery slope.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3435: What if the user has his own signing key already


Regarding the text: Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Sour
In section: agplv3.nonsource.p8.s1
Submitted by: jmaebe on 2007-06-19 at 09:01 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jmaebe on 2007-06-19 at 09:01 EDT:

The following came up in a Dutch Linux discussion newsgroup: imagine a TV with a firmware based on GPL-licensed software. The manufacturer uses code signing (implemented in hardware & ROM) using a secret key to prevent easy takeover of the TVs into a botnet.

However, because the code itself is GPL, they do not want to (and under GPLv3, cannot) deny the end user to install modified versions of the software. To this end, every TV accepts code either signed by the manufacturer's key (common to all TVs, and secret), or by that TV's specific end-user key (different for each TV, and stamped on the TV, available in the TV's user manual, by pressing a certain code on the remote control, whatever...)

The problem is that this scheme would not be allowed by the current draft, because the source code would not be distributed along with the necessary "installation information" (i.e., any signing key). Nevertheless, the user has access to a key which he can use to update his machine using the provided source code.

I don't know how to word this in a legally sound way, but it would seem to me that allowing this situation would be a useful improvement without requiring any compromises as far as the GPL ideology is concerned.

noted by jmaebe on 2007-06-19 at 09:52 EDT:

Maybe a possibility would be to specify that installation information which is readily available to the user on the User Product itself need not be provided.
noted by jmaebe on 2007-06-19 at 11:40 EDT:

Sorry, these comments were meant for the GPLv3 draft 4 at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html. I've added them there now, you can remove these comment.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3463: Point out only the differences between GPL and AGPL


Regarding the text: GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
In section: title.0.0
Submitted by: trosos on 2007-06-23 at 19:17 EDT
1 agree: madbob
noted by trosos on 2007-06-23 at 19:17 EDT:

If AGPL is based on GPL, why don't you make it simpler by just saying "AGPL it is based on GPL", and pointing out the differences, as you already did for LGPL?

I think it would at least make it easier to be familiar with all the licenses. Moreover, perhaps it could make finding bugs in AGPL during the comment process easier.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3470: Define: "the program"


Regarding the text: if you modify the Program
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: bothie on 2007-06-25 at 01:53 EDT
0 agree:
noted by bothie on 2007-06-25 at 01:53 EDT:

Suppose I write a webtool of any kind and use some libraries. This program is taken by some company and changed in a way, that it uses a company specific non-GPL library (maybe call some functions at specific places and add a -lcompany to the Makefile). Now they create/modify their library implementing all actual enhencements there instead of in the main program. So, would they need to publish this library as well, or would they only need to publish the modified (but useless) version of my webtool?

Maybe, AGPL should only allow linkage against *GPL code and force distribution of modifications to ANY of the components up to the os kernel. So, if anyone uses a patched version of glibc with my webtool, he'd be forced to distribute glibc (even if he didn't modify the webtool self).


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3484: Move source for servers clause to Section 2


Regarding the text: Remote Network Interaction
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.0.0
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-06-27 at 09:58 EDT
1 agree: vbrobald
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-06-27 at 09:58 EDT:

The requirement to provide source for servers is a condition on use, so it belongs in Section 2.
noted by crosbie on 2007-08-01 at 16:36 EDT:

And yet it can only be achieved because of a potentially infringing modification (or the preparation of a derivative).

It's more a "You may only modify this source IF"

Copyright does not interfere with the use of software.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3489: underescaped


Regarding the text: year name of author
In section: agplv3.howtoapply.p8.s1
Submitted by: webograp on 2007-06-27 at 13:13 EDT
0 agree:
noted by webograp on 2007-06-27 at 13:13 EDT:

the same bug as described in http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-4&id=3277 applies here, too. this should be " " or similar.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3490: Separate it !


Regarding the text: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.0.0
Submitted by: giovani on 2007-06-28 at 05:05 EDT
1 agree: giovani
noted by giovani on 2007-06-28 at 05:05 EDT:

This is the core of AGPL. Rules on using it remotely and interacting with other FLOSS licenses should be expanded and treated in separate sections.

Refer to what the Telematics Freedom Foundation (www.telematicsfreedom.org) is trying to address in very sensitive governmental (including internet voting softwares being developed today) and democratic scenarios. AGPL currently does not support the levels of privacy and freedom for those users.

This license, or a "strong" version of it, should care about those sensitive scenarios, before the big corporates dominate the rising governmental internet voting projects popping up around the world with closed, proprietary softwares wich does not guarantee the citizens about what's happening.

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 21:04 EDT:

/ This is the core of AGPL. Rules on using it remotely and interacting with other FLOSS licenses should be expanded and treated in separate sections. /

I agree that this section should be split up, but I think the conditions on remote interaction should be incorporated into Section 2, rather than put in a seperate section.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3492: closing the hole


Regarding the text: The terms of this License will continue to apply to your covered work but will not apply to the work with which it is linked, which will remain governed by the GNU General Public License.
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p1.s2
Submitted by: chemaper on 2007-06-29 at 08:52 EDT
1 agree: john1040
noted by chemaper on 2007-06-29 at 08:52 EDT:

I think that the license must allow to link GPL code with AGPL if the expression "opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version" of previous paragraph refers also to the GPL code, not only the AGPL code. Otherwise its possible to "extends" AGPL code with GPL code and not provide access to the modifications. GPLv3 allows to link AGPL code with GPL code and AGPL clauses only apply to AGPL code.

I think this additional paragraph close the "hole" (sorry for my horrible English):

You don't have permission to link covered work with code covered aunder GNU General Public License if the combined work interact with users remotely and don't give them the opportunity to receive all the Corresponding Source (the AGPL parts and the GPL parts) from a network server at not charge.

noted by chemaper on 2007-06-29 at 15:13 EDT:

UPDATED:

Final version of GPLv3 close the "hole". My comment is now obsolete. Great!!!


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3493: Program use vs. remote networks


Regarding the text: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.0.0
Submitted by: spenceal on 2007-06-30 at 01:27 EDT
0 agree:
noted by spenceal on 2007-06-30 at 01:27 EDT:

Some thoughts on the AGPL as a whole...

I think the issue being addressed is that the _users_ of a program (those interacting with a web application) are not being given the freedoms implied by 'free software'. This is because currently freedom is only given to those who receive a copy of the program. However, from the users standpoint, being given remote access and receiving non-source forms are essentially the same.

I think the goal should be to expand upon the idea of use. Distributing non-source forms and allowing network access would just be two ways to allow people to use the program. If this were done then remote network interaction would be subject to the same terms that are already stated in section 6.[3]. It would also make it easier to cover any other method of denying freedom by not technically 'distributing' the program.

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 21:19 EDT:

/ However, from the users standpoint, being given remote access and receiving non-source forms are essentially the same. /

This is true, but from the provider's point of view, they are very different. I think conveying and providing remote access needs to be kept seperate in order to recognise this difference from the provider's point of view.

However I think it would make sense to split up Section 2 so it deals seperately with use that does not provide remote access, and use that does, to reflect that they are very different in a way, and that the license deals with them very differently (the latter being treated much like conveying).

noted by crosbie on 2007-08-01 at 17:02 EDT:

Perhaps you should question whether the user does actually have a right to the source code, whether they're given the binary or remote access.

Just because copyright gives you a way to apparently oblige disclosure of source code it doesn't actually mean such an obligation is necessary in the first place. It is arguable that if binaries could be freely copied then the only thing that could be sold would be the source code - thus achieving the objective of source code availability.

The GPL's obligation for licensees to release source should instead be seen as helpful persuasion (of something that people would conclude anyway) rather than something that is so appealing to disobey it needs litigation to enforce.

So, if you could see that the GPL would work just as well without a compulsion to release source, then you might also see that there was no reason for the AGPL either, that the GPL was quite sufficient (with or without a clause requiring source disclosure).

If you want the GPL source code to someone's improvements to a web service, offer to pay for it. Why on earth should you get it for nothing?

Similarly, if someone improves a GPL program and e-mails you a free binary demo so you can check out their modifications, why should you get the mods for free? Pay for their work. Once you've paid, you get the source code and can modify and reproduce it to your heart's content.

A compromise solution would be this: The GPL permits binaries without source as long as the binaries are free of charge. The AGPL permits networked exposure of AGPL derivatives without source as long as the service is free of charge.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3494: The requirement to provide source for servers is, and should be presented as, a use requirement.


Regarding the text: if you modify the Program
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:30 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:30 EDT:

If only those who modify the program need to provide source, then modification could be contracted out, or running a server could be contracted out, so that the party running the server is not the one that did the modification. Also, it could be that the party that wrote that version isn't using it anymore, so now the source isn't provided by anyone. Further, even if the party that wrote that version is using it, and providing source, if they are using it on a much smaller scale than you, it's unfair that they have to provide the source and you don't (they put in the extra work, and they are being /punished/ for that). For conveying, you must make the source available whether you are conveying a modified version or not, and it should be the same for use on a server.

If 'modification' is being considered as anything that prevents the program from providing source, then this is really weird, e.g. I can't copy the program on my server without copying the source code, because the program without the source code would be different from the program with the source code, so would be a modified version??? And if we take it literally, the clause wouldn't actually work, since I could set up a firewall that blocks requests for source, so it is not a modification of the program that is preventing the providing of source, but rather another work. And besides, if the program as received it pointed to a file on someone else's web site, then surely you haven't modified the program if that file gets taken down, or even if the whole web site gets taken down, but you're not providing source.

It seems that the requirement to provide source, which is a use requirement, is being presented as a modification requirement. This is seriously twisted thinking. I should have the right to modify the work such that it doesn't provide source if I'm using it only locally on my PC (e.g. for testing purposes). This should not be a limitation on the right to tinker.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3495: "all users" should be "other parties"


Regarding the text: all users
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:34 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:34 EDT:

To match the requirements on conveying, source should not be required for users who are not considered to be other parties. (Personally, I don't like this, but it should be consistent.)
noted by thomasd on 2007-07-10 at 01:45 EDT:

I am given to understand that the word "remotely" had been intended to cover the issue of exempting private modification but conveys the intended meaning poorly. See my comment at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=agplv3-draft-1&id=3502 for a simple change in the language to solve the problem.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3496: "interacting" should be "being provided an interactive service"


Regarding the text: interacting
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:37 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:37 EDT:

Source should not be required for network /clients/ only for network /servers/, since the server does not depend on the clients providing a service, but the clients do depend on the server providing a service.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3497: "remotely" is irrelevant


Regarding the text: remotely
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:38 EDT
1 agree: thomasd
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:38 EDT:

It doesn't matter if the server is remote, or just across the street.
noted by thomasd on 2007-07-10 at 01:37 EDT:

I am given to understand that the word "remotely" had been intended to cover the issue of exempting private modification but conveys the intended meaning poorly. See my comment at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=agplv3-draft-1&id=3502 for a simple change in the language to solve the problem.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3498: change "through a computer network" to "via a User Product they own"


Regarding the text: through a computer network
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:43 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:43 EDT:

It shouldn't be required to provide source for a server networked to kiosks which the users don't own.
noted by spenceal on 2007-07-14 at 06:38 EDT:

Specifying something that the user 'owns' would be troublesome. I think that users interacting with the software via a university computer, public library, etc should also be given access to the source. The term 'remotely' is vague, but perhaps it could imply that access to the sources is only required if the 'interaction' passes though a network/computer not operated/affiliated by the party that makes modifications.
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-08-05 at 07:01 EDT:

/ I think that users interacting with the software via a university computer, public library, etc should also be given access to the source. /

If I'm accessing the server from my computer, then it is as if my computer has the server in it, i.e. it is as if I was in possession of the server, hence I should have access to the source as if I was in possession.

If I'm accessing the server from someone else's computer, or a public kiosk, then it is nothing like me being in possession of the server, so I don't have any right to access the source (IMHO).

Besides, kiosks and public computers are usually provided for specific uses, e.g. university computers for university work only. I doubt there would be many organisations that would be happy about users downloading source code over public computers, since it would use bandwidth, and also occupy a computer that would otherwise be available for its intended purpose.

Also, if a contractor is running the server, they will have to charge more if they must also provide source free of charge to anyone who wants to download it via a computer they don't own. So the organisation running the public terminals would have to pay this extra charge too.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3499: "at no charge" should be "at no additional charge"


Regarding the text: at no charge
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:46 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-01 at 22:46 EDT:

It's ok to charge for the network service (e.g. access to on-line games, etc.), and only provide source access to those people who have paid (since they are the only people using the service), so this should be at no /additional/ charge.

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3500: Allow either on physical medium or via a network


Regarding the text: access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: jamesgnz on 2007-07-02 at 08:41 EDT
0 agree:
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-07-02 at 08:41 EDT:

There are some cases where requiring access via a network is weird and/or problematic.

* A company that sells a TiVo/cellphone-like device with GPL or AGPL client software and AGPL server software can choose to provide client source: on media accompanying the product; on media at a later date; or via network. However they are required to provide the server software via network, even if they also ship it on media when they connect you, and ship further copies to anyone who request them.

* A cafe that has a WiFi server, or someone who organises a LAN party, and uses an AGPL server, must provide access via network, even if they also supply CDs on demand.

* If Google released their map service under the AGPL, other service providers who ran it would have to provide a download for it.

I think the requirement to provide source via network is due to a mistaken analogy between providing a service over a network and conveying a binary over a network. The GPL requirement for conveying a binary over a network (6d) is that source also be conveyed over the network.

However, whereas if the binary was conveyed over a network, we know the provider has the network facilities to convey the work, and that conveying via a network is an appropriate way of conveying the work, the same can not be said if the work merely provided a service over a network.

If we look at the clauses in Section 6, they generally place a limit on how the provider can fulfill their obligation to convey source, based on how they conveyed the binary. The correct comparison is not say that providing access via a network is like conveying via a network, so providers should be limited to 6d, but rather that since the provider has not conveyed at all, they should not be limited in how they are allowed to provide source.

Allow:

1/ Providing source on a physical medium at the time that people sign up to the service (with a connection pack, or whatever).

2/ Providing source on a physical medium on request.

or 3/ Providing network access.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3501: Source Not Receivable through No Fault of Network Service or User


Regarding the text: network server
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: thomasd on 2007-07-09 at 23:02 EDT
0 agree:
noted by thomasd on 2007-07-09 at 23:02 EDT:

Many users who are able to interact with a Program over a network often have some restricted circumstances in the basic provisions for access to the Program which prevents them from taking advantage of the opportunity for access to the Corresponding Source over the same network connection. The cause for such restrictions may be outside the control or direction of either the licensee providing use of the Program over the network or the user interacting over the network. Independent third parties are necessarily outside the scope of the license. If the provider of the network service is allowed to limit the opportunity to provide access to Corresponding Source to the same network connection or worse the same network session as a means to limit the opportunity to actual users of the network service, then for a large class of network services none of the actual users will be able to obtain access to Corresponding Source.

Reasons for such restrictions generally involve proxy servers operated by third parties regulating the connection to the network service but prohibiting some aspect of network access which blocks access to the Corresponding Source from the network server . Restrictions also include third party prevention of copying from general access terminals regulating access to the network server.

Examples of affected services include software managing subscription content databases provided for bibliographic libraries and public information kiosks. The software which manages the content would be from a different party than the library or information kiosk provider and run from an external network. The database management software could be a Program covered by the license for which users of the library or information kiosk should have the right to access corresponding source. Most of the software with which library users may interact is obstructed by conventions described below. I know that this same problem is prevalent for some parts of the information kiosk market but I do not know if this problem exists for the majority of software accessible from information kiosks generally.

The manifestations of this problem are complex but the solution is very simple.

1. HOW CONVENTIONAL USER AUTHENTICATION INNOCENTLY BLOCKS ACCESS TO SOURCE.

1.1. PROXY SERVERS.

Network service customers contract with the network service to obtain access to a data content service provided by the network service. Users have an affiliation to a network service customer but have no direct relationship to the network service. The network service may use network address authentication as well as username and password authentication to verify that access to the network service and associated content comes from a customer who has paid the service and content fees. The network service customers maintain proxy servers so that all their affiliated users have access to the network service through the network service customers' network address, username, and password.

Most network service customers configure their proxy servers to severely restrict the activity of their users for preventing what the network service customers consider inappropriate use of their proxy servers and the access to other networks provided by the proxy servers. The effect of such proxy server restrictions would often be to effectively block users from accessing the Corresponding Source. Yet the parties controlling proxy server restrictions are third parties on whom the license could have no effect. Users might attempt to obtain some other access to the Corresponding Source without the network connection passing through a restrictive proxy server. However, the license draft would allow the network server using conventional user authentication practises to innocently block other connection attempts to the access the Corresponding Source as part of ensuring that the opportunity for access was only provided to users of the network service.

Under the current draft language a network service would be allowed to use the same network address etc.. based authentication methods for verifying legitimate users when providing access to Corresponding Source for verifying legitimate network service customers. Users who attempt to access the Corresponding Source using a network connection which does not pass through the restrictive proxy server of the network service service customer will not succeed at authenticating themselves as users of the network service because they would not have the network address, etc. of a recognised customer.

1.1.1. PARTICULAR RESTRICTIONS IMPLEMENTED BY THIRD PARTIES.

1.1.1.1. NETWORK ADDRESS RESTRICTION.

A network service customer may configure their proxy server to restrict their users from accessing any but a list of authorised network addresses. The network address for accessing Corresponding Source may not be included in the list of authorised network addresses. Users would be unable to authenticate themselves with the network service to access the Corresponding Source outside of the third party restrictive proxy server as described in the main part of the proxy server section above.

1.1.1.2. DOWNLOAD SIZE RESTRICTION.

A network service customer may configure their proxy server to block users from downloading files over a specified size. If the Corresponding Source exceeded the maximum setting for download size, then the users would be unable to copy the source file. Users would be unable to authenticate themselves with the network service to access the Corresponding Source outside of the third party restrictive proxy server as described in the main part of the proxy server section above.

1.1.1.3. OFF SITE ACCESS TO PROXY SERVER BLOCKED.

A network service customer may configure their proxy server to block off site connections. The site which the network service customer establishes for accessing the proxy server connecting to a particular network service may be a single on site terminal or a range of terminals under its control. The more expensive the network service or underlying data content the greater the likelihood is that the network service customer will limit access to the network service to a few tightly controlled terminals. When tightly controlled terminals are the only place from which a user has access to a network service and the Corresponding Source, then the configuration of those terminals by the network service customer may act to restrict access to the network service. Restrictions on terminals may be intended to ensure conformance to appropriate use as well as protecting the terminals and the network from security risks which may be posed by unknown terminal users.

1.1.1.3.1. ON SITE TERMINAL SOFTWARE NETWORK ACCESS RESTRICTION.

A network service customer may configure their on site terminal client software to prevent access to any network location other than the network service itself. Users may be blocked from following a link which leaves the network service. Users may be blocked from manually entering any network location. Users would be unable to access a network location for accessing the Corresponding Source other than the same location as the network service itself. Users would be unable to authenticate themselves with the network service to access the Corresponding Source outside of the third party restrictive on site terminals and proxy server as described in the main part of the proxy server and off site access blocked sections above.

1.1.1.3.2. ON SITE TERMINAL SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD SIZE RESTRICTION.

A network service customer may configure their on site terminal client software to prevent downloads exceeding a specified size. If the Corresponding Source exceeded the maximum setting for download size, then the users would be unable to copy the source file. Users would be unable to authenticate themselves with the network service to access the Corresponding Source outside of the third party restrictive on site terminals and proxy server as described in the main part of the proxy server and off site access blocked sections above.

1.1.1.3.3. ON SITE TERMINAL BLOCKS COPYING TO EXTERNAL MEDIA.

A network service customer may configure their on site terminals to prevent users from copying files to external media. Users may be blocked from connecting removable media or copying to removable media. Users may also be blocked from copying files to an external network location. Users would be unable to authenticate themselves with the network service to access the Corresponding Source outside of the third party restrictive terminals and proxy server as described in the main part of the proxy server and off site access blocked sections above.

2. REMEDY.

Changing deeply entrenched practises for network service authentication is very unlikely to happen. Even the practise of treating GPL software as proprietary within the scope of private modification for network service use is a sufficiently great problem, which will be difficult to overcome in the effort to have AGPL 3 accepted.

Simply requiring the network service provider to provide access to Corresponding Source from a publicly accessible network server should avoid the problems described in this comment.

Yet, some network service providers may believe that they should not be compelled to provide access to Corresponding Source for anyone other than actual users of their network service.

3. HOW NETWORK SERVICES COULD AUTHENTICATE USERS WITHOUT INNOCENTLY BLOCKING ACCESS TO SOURCE.

I would hope that network services would offer access to Corresponding Source to anyone without a concern over whether the person obtaining access is a network service user or not. However, I recognise that many network services may wish to limit access to Corresponding Source to actual users.

Network services could still authenticate actual users for purposes of accessing the Corresponding Source without requiring them to have the same authentication which the network service customer has to access the network service. Each network service session could provide the opportunity to obtain a one time use user authentication code to use when obtaining access to the Corresponding Source. The location of the network server for accessing the Corresponding Source would need to be publicly accessible to avoid the problems described above. A user authentication code could then be required to verify actual users from the publicly accessible network location if the network service actually needed to require verification of actual users.

4. POSSIBILITY OF SOCIAL PRESSURE WITHOUT CHANGING DRAFT LANGUAGE.

The license should be clear and strong so that licensees will know what is expected of them without any need for social pressure to correct for problems created by lack of clarity or strength of license terms.

Social pressure tends to work most effectively on the already willing and to correct simple misunderstanding of the intent of the license. A special difficulty for correcting the problem identified by this comment is that the real problem is created by restrictions imposed by third parties who may be especially reluctant to facilitate the intent of compliance with a license to which they would not be not a party when providing indirect access to a covered Program.

Furthermore, I know of some potential licensees who have made statements asserting their disapproval of the intent of some copyleft terms placing user freedom above developer freedom and that they believe that proxy server practises will make AGPL V3 ineffective in many circumstances. I will not improperly identify those organisations which have not yet acted against the intent of a license which does not yet exist. However, those organisations believe that they would have sufficient cover in the terms of the current draft license to evade the intent of the license while complying with the precise terms.

FSF may be able to have an adequate effect in applying social pressure on many licensees but not every developer will be willing to make an assignment to FSF. The license itself should be strong enough so that developers from small organisations do not believe they have unnecessary pressure to assign their copyrights to the FSF as the only means to obtain effective compliance with the intent of the license.

The license must be general enough to be universally applicable but specific enough to be clearly understood and enforceable.

5. EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM.

Millions of library users would be potentially affected by this problem if AGPL 3 software were widely adopted in a library context. Many other markets outside my own particular area of interest may be similarly affected. If AGPL 3 would be ineffective for libraries then it would be ineffective for me and the millions of others who depend heavily upon libraries and the services offered via libraries.

6. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS.

My suggested solution adds the phrase "publicly accessible" to qualify the network server from which the opportunity for Corresponding Source is accessible.

6.1. DIFF OF SUGGESTION CHANGE.

{{ Double braces mark material to be added.}}

" Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a {{publicly accessible}} network server at no charge."


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3502: Remotely does not convey intended meaning well


Regarding the text: remotely
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: thomasd on 2007-07-10 at 00:50 EDT
0 agree:
noted by thomasd on 2007-07-10 at 00:50 EDT:

I am given to understand that the use of the word "remotely" is.intended to protect private modifications which you run for yourself as the only user. As such, I believe that popular understanding the word is more likely to lead to misinterpretation of the license intent than correct interpretation of the license. If remotely is understood as opposed to local, then services offered over local networks from general access terminals may be understood to be excluded.

Examples of the scope which may be understood to be excluded could be locally run network services provided via general access terminals at bibliographic libraries, information kiosks, train ticketing terminals, etc. Not all of these would be likely cases and many might have access which would be understood to be remote and therefore covered. However, even where some remote use exists for some services other network services may be provided exclusively via general access terminals which could be understood to be local.

Fortunately,clear language expressing the proper intent can be provided with three simple words.

1. SUGGESTED SOLUTION.

"Remotely" should be removed and "all users" should be qualified with the parenthetical "(other than yourself)".

1.1. DIFF OF SUGGESTION CHANGE.

[[Double brackets mark material to be deleted.]]

{{ Double braces mark material to be added.}}

" Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users {{(other than yourself)}} interacting with it [[remotely]] through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."

1.2. COMPLETED SUGGESTION CHANGE.

" Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users (other than yourself) interacting with it through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-08-05 at 07:23 EDT:

/ If remotely is understood as opposed to local, then services offered over local networks from general access terminals may be understood to be excluded. /

I think such cases should be excluded (as per my Comment 3498). The following is copied from a follow-on to that comment:

If I'm accessing the server from my computer, then it is as if my computer has the server in it, i.e. it is as if I was in possession of the server, hence I should have access to the source as if I was in possession.

If I'm accessing the server from someone else's computer, or a public kiosk, then it is nothing like me being in possession of the server, so I don't have any right to access the source (IMHO).

noted by thomasd on 2007-10-03 at 12:06 EDT:

[Please excuse my late reply. I had not seen the above child comment until after discussion draft 2 was posted.]

In response to jamesgnz:

1. ALL USERS.

The license is intended to protect the rights of all users of the Program without regard to the particular circumstance of users in relation to the ownership, renting, or borrowing of a computer. From the preamble, "our General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." A necessary scope for private use is still available when the licensee and the user are one in the same, but I do not believe that providing the Program on a local network to which users other than the licensee are given access is intended to be within the scope of private use nor should it be.

I note that my examples are grossly underinclusive and an inconsistency in the criticism of my argument about local networks based on my underinclusive examples.

2. ISSUE OF COMPUTER OWNERSHIP.

I failed to mention local networks which provide wired or wireless connections for the users' own laptop computers. The users may clearly own the computers they use when they are providing the computers themselves. The use of small portable computers with software provided from various local network points might evolve into a very significant provision for computing in which only data files are stored on a distant remote computer or users' portable computers.

Even in the case of some general access terminals such as those at public libraries, the citizens of the community may have an ownership interest in those terminals procured by an organisation usually associated with the local government and using the tax revenue of the community.

3. WIDE SCOPE.

The rationale for discussion draft 2 clearly stresses the importance of having AGPL 3 apply as widely as possible. "A strong interpretation is also more forward-looking. When the web was first invented, it would have been hard to imagine that someone could interact with software through it. By keeping the GNU AGPL's scope broad, we can do our best to make sure that it will apply well when other methods for interacting with software are invented in the future." Rationale for the second discussion draft of the GNU Affero GPL version 3. - http://gplv3.fsf.org /agplv3-dd2-rationale.html .


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3508: Only One Opportunity?


Regarding the text: an opportunity
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: robmyers on 2007-07-11 at 05:11 EDT
0 agree:
noted by robmyers on 2007-07-11 at 05:11 EDT:

"An" can be read as "one". Make sure this section requires the ability to receive the source code to be either constantly available or clearly accessible from any point in a session that makes sense.

For example an email client should always have a source link at the bottom and a streaming video server should have a link in its HUD, in its pop-up control menu, and/or in any placards at the start or end of the stream.

Otherwise people will make servers that hide a source download button in the initial registration screen (giving you "an opportunity" to download) and then never show it again (having satisfied the letter of the current draft).


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3509: this is not affero...


Regarding the text: Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
In section: agplv3.definitions.p3.s4
Submitted by: madbob on 2007-07-11 at 19:23 EDT
1 agree: norton
noted by madbob on 2007-07-11 at 19:23 EDT:

This portion isn't just the opposite of the purpose of the Affero GPL? It is in the GPLv3 just to exclude those kind of works which are, on the contrary, protected by Affero... Haven't this to be removed?
noted by paigrain on 2007-07-18 at 12:02 EDT:

The core provision of the Affero GPL license is in article 13 and it creates an obligation of offering access to full modified code to users interacting with the program regardless of whether conveying has occurred or not. This is reinforced by the mention "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License".
noted by crosbie on 2007-07-24 at 09:34 EDT:

The statement should be true in both licences.

It could be possible for the word 'conveying' to be defined with contradictory meanings, but that seems a bit silly...

It would be better for all words to have the same meanings in all FSF licences, but the licences to stipulate different obligations.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3528: Voting machines?


Regarding the text: if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: andrewjb on 2007-07-22 at 01:39 EDT
0 agree:
noted by andrewjb on 2007-07-22 at 01:39 EDT:

Is the AGPL intended to be a suitable license for enforcing the freedom of voting machine software? Voting machines are probably a special case of kiosks, so it could also be a good way to force kiosk software to be free to users. The clause "remotely through a computer network" would defeat this interpetation, though.
noted by jamesgnz on 2007-08-05 at 07:32 EDT:

/ Is the AGPL intended to be a suitable license for enforcing the freedom of voting machine software? /

Source should be available for voting machines regardless of whether it is AGPL, GPL, BSD, or public domain. However unless all voting machine software were AGPL, then only the government can ensure this. And this is only one special case of kiosks. In general, I don't think source should be required for kiosks.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3545: This is *good*.


Regarding the text: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Cor
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: neroden on 2007-07-22 at 02:34 EDT
0 agree:
noted by neroden on 2007-07-22 at 02:34 EDT:

I actually really like this. This phraseology does it right: it specifies ends, not means. I objected to the old Affero GPL and the earlier proposed versions of this clause in the GPLv3 drafts -- but *this* version I would have been happy to have in the GPL itself.

It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is always satisfiable under *all* circumstances by setting up a public network server which lets *anyone* copy the Corresponding Source for free. This eliminates pretty much all of the practical problems with previous clauses.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3548: What does Affero mean?


Regarding the text: AFFERO
In section: title.0.0
Submitted by: norton on 2007-07-23 at 03:21 EDT
0 agree:
noted by norton on 2007-07-23 at 03:21 EDT:

I couldn't find the meaning of this word in any English dictionary. Is this word really necessary? Can't we replace it with something simpler?

collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3549: Detection and enforcement


Regarding the text: if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p0.s1
Submitted by: crosbie on 2007-07-24 at 09:52 EDT
0 agree:
noted by crosbie on 2007-07-24 at 09:52 EDT:

Let us assume that it is possible for someone to detect that the source to a remotely interactive program is an unauthorised derivative of an AGPL work.

If someone finds such evidence, presumably their only option (if the service provider contests) is to sue for copyright infringement (unauthorised preparation of derivatives). They cannot force the disclosure of modified source code.

Please can it be made clear that the AGPL will in no measure take advantage of any grant to inspect, search, seize, sequestrate, or otherwise force disclosure of unpublished materials?

The only remedies the AGPL will utilise are financial costs/penalties for copyright infringement.

Any disclosure of source is necessarily, purely a voluntary option available to the infringer should they wish to avoid copyright infringement by adhering to the terms of the AGPL.

noted by savonix on 2007-08-01 at 00:05 EDT:

crosbie - I appreciate your concern about that issue of compelling a copyright infringer to disclose unpublished materials, but the purpose of the agpl is not to protect the infringer, but to protect the publisher.
noted by crosbie on 2007-08-01 at 16:07 EDT:

And here was I thinking that this was all about the restoration of the public's liberty and rights to privacy. I thought protecting the publisher's privilege of a monopoly on copies and derivatives was generally despised by the free software fraternity.

Would you violate the privacy of a member of the public simply because they'd enabled remote interaction with what you believed was an unauthorised derivative of a published AGPL work?

Would you hire RIAA's storm troopers to perform a dawn raid in order to confiscate this infringer's hard drive as evidence for their prosecution?

And if this nefarious hacker had encrypted the source, would you offer them a few year's reflection in Guantanamo to reconsider disclosure of their private key?

It's easy to step over this line in the sand between what is ethical and what you believe is best for the community - especially when you fail to question whether copyright is unethical in the first place ("It gives us power to police the private domain, so why not use it if we think the community benefits?").

I hear they're still hiring information retrieval specialists in the Ministry of Information.

noted by jamesgnz on 2007-08-05 at 07:45 EDT:

/ Would you violate the privacy of a member of the public simply because they'd enabled remote interaction with what you believed was an unauthorised derivative of a published AGPL work?

Would you hire RIAA's storm troopers to perform a dawn raid in order to confiscate this infringer's hard drive as evidence for their prosecution? /

That really depends on how I'm feeling that day. :-P

I see your point here--copyright law enforcement is overkill. However the AGPL is complicated enough already without trying to deal with penalties as well as rules, and this is really an issue that needs to be dealt with by reducing copyright law penalties anyway.

BTW this issue is not specific to the AGPL, it applies to the GPL too.


collapse children


# DISABLES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS FOR DRAFTERS

Comment 3612: what is "your covered work"


Regarding the text: your covered work
In section: agplv3.remotenetworkandgnu.p1.s2
Submitted by: samjam on 2007-11-28 at 01:14 EST
0 agree:
noted by samjam on 2007-11-28 at 01:14 EST:

Is "your covered work" the combined single work? What does "your" mean if you are not an author but recipient via AGPL net-access?

collapse children