●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
387161
story
Posted
by
kdawson
mber 19, 2007 @11:55PM
from the when-view-source-isn't-enough dept.
mako writes "The Free Software Foundation has released the Affero General Public license version 3. The license is essentially the GPLv3 with an added clause that requires that source code be distributed to users that interact with the application over a network. The license effectively extends copyright to Web applications. The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web. This release adds the license to the stable of official FSF licenses and is compatible with the GPLv3."
Related Links
Vote To Eliminate Leap Seconds
Cannabis Compound Said To "Halt Cancer"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byjkrise ( 535370 ) writes:
Can someone explain exactly how a license can extend Copyright?
The owner of the copyright might extend terms in his license, not the other way round.
twitter
facebook
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
Can someone explain exactly how a license can extend Copyright?
I think the author of TFA meant copyleft.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Normally, copyright wants nothing to do with web apps. It's like, "Oh my gosh! This PHP code is total shit! I won't have a thing to do with it. It's just dirty!". Other times it's like, "This enterprise Java app is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too over-engineered. We have factory classes for generating factory classes for generating factory classes for generating objects that wrap the native boolean datatype. Fuck this stupidity!" Then it goes home and watches TV.
So a group like the FSF will have to come along and rough up copyright a little bit. Only if copyright is legally forced to deal with the mess that are web apps will it bother to do so. Even then, I'm thinking it'll resist somewhat, since I'm pretty sure it doesn't want to have to associate with such pathetic programming.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybytesex ( 112972 ) writes:
Factory classes generating objects ? Not likely. Surely you should know better. You meant 'interfaces', didn't you ? Factory classes generating interfaces that /might/ wrap the native boolean class. But can also provide the boolean getIsTrue() and getIsFalse() method for other objects. Very usefull class indeed. - whistles -.
bynuzak ( 959558 ) writes:
You forgot the all important isFileNotFound() method.
bym2943 ( 1140797 ) writes:
The same way a license extends to extracting dollars out of your wallet: you can only copy the software if you agree to the license terms, and the license terms require you to do something (which, coincidentally, actually has to do with making available software to others).
bysumdumass ( 711423 ) writes:
The license doesn't extract money from your wallet, the copyright does.
This is an important distinction because you can place any license you want on something that is in the public domain and it is up to the user is they want to spend money or follow the license. So no copyright, not enforcements of license or fees.
byrucs_hack ( 784150 ) writes:
The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web
Only if they use it. No-one's under an obligation to use a new version of a licence, and if they don't like the terms, they may steer clear of it to start with.
twitter
facebook
byDirtyHerring ( 635192 ) writes:
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. GreedyBastardCompany wants to use and change it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. GreedyBastardCompany wants to use it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL.
Fixed for you. This version of the GPL goes above and beyond what the GPL has traditionally concerned itself with, distribution.
So I'm wondering, do you have to provide the source code only if the user can directly use the program through a web service or does it account for indirect access? If I
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
I way I see this is that if you make changes which are publicly viewable then you have to re-distribute those changes. If you don't make changes then no one is going to come knocking on your door.
I don't really see the need for this license. I've been writing PHP code for years and this has never been a problem. When I worked for GreedyBastardCompany I was looking for a free captcha to use. If it was licensed under the AGPL I would have looked for something else more work safe. Luck had it that it was licen
bynahdude812 ( 88157 ) * writes:
Your argument basically disagrees with the core values of open source. "I don't want to have to share my changes to an application which was shared freely with me." You do still have a choice, and that is: build it yourself from the ground up or buy a commercial off the shelf solution.
This license has been needed for a long time. Authors of open source web applications could not use the GPL or almost any other open source license, which only grants access to modified source code if the modder distributes
bypongo000 ( 97357 ) writes:
You write ReallyCoolWebTool and license it under the AGPL. SmallNonprofitOrganization wants to use and change it. Now they have the choice between releasing their source code, or not using it at all. That was different with the GPL
Post-mortem:
SmallNonprofitOrganization discovers bandwidth costs have soared due to extra bandwidth required to support downloading of modified code. SmallNonprofitOrganization decides it's not worth the hassle, ditches ReallyCoolWebTool for a more "user-friendly" closed source l
byhacker ( 14635 ) writes:
SmallNonprofitOrganization discovers bandwidth costs have soared due to extra bandwidth required to support downloading of modified code.
Then SmallNonprofitOrganization uses any of the hundreds of services out there to help them, like:
(一) Coral Content Distribution Network [coralcdn.org]
(二)SourceForge.net [sourceforge.net]
(三)SourceFubar [sourcefubar.net]
...and so on. Barring that, they just ask a member of the FLOSS community to host it for them, gratis, in exchange for some mention on their website or other non-financial gratification.
byFireFury03 ( 653718 ) writes:
On the face of it this licence sounds like a Good Thing. However, it also sounds worryingly close to an EULA... :(
bySancho ( 17056 ) writes:
It is a EULA, which is a great departure from the GPL of old.
Of course, web applications break the model. There are two users--the host is using the application to interact with the user, and the user is using the web application to interact with the host. It's a really weird situation. That said, I kinda like the separation of the old days, because frankly, where does this end? Should the user get a copy of Apache just for visiting a website? If the website interacts with a database, should they get a
byFireFury03 ( 653718 ) writes:
It is a EULA, which is a great departure from the GPL of old.
But EULAs (should be) unenforceable since there is no way to prove the user agreed to it.
Distribution licences, such as the GPL, work on the fact that without the licence you didn't have the rights to distribute the software, so if you are distributing it by extension you must have accepted the licence.
EULAs take away rights that you had anyway, so there is nothing forcing the user to agree to it since they can still use the software even if they
byScorpFromHell ( 837952 ) writes:
The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web.
What does this mean now? If I release a web service under AGPL, do I have to distribute the changes or not?
Sorry, am not a native English speaker. IANAL too.
bySmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) writes:
I write a web based application, say forum software, and publish that under the regular GPL.
That means you can take the source code for my software and modify it and use it. BUT because you never distribute that modified code (you only run it on your own server) you don't have to honor the GPL and disclose your modifications.
This is extremely common lots of websites use GPL software but never contribute back their own changes.
IF I write my forum software under the AGPL and you modify it for your own use, you now have to distribute those changes. Roughly the same as if you had modified a client program.
HOWEVER your question is slightly odd, if you release a web service under AGPL then you are the original author. As the original author (as long as no others contribute code to you) you can do what you please. Just because version 1 of your software was under X license doesn't mean version 2 has to be.
What I think you meant to ask was "If I build a webservice with software that is licensed under the AGPL, do I have to distribute changes I make to that software".
The answer to that is YES.
Although I presume they will allow you to modify the config file and keep it private, bit of a security nightmare if you have to distribute the bit that contains your passwords ^_^
Basically this is the GPL for software where the end-user only gets the end-result, not the actuall program.
It is an intresting idea, the GPL works because it en-forces users to be contributors as well. There is a reason MS and Apple love BSD and IBM loves the GPL. Why should software like forum software be different?
As a web developer I like the idea. When I release a web-app and you modify it, you now have to give that code back. Seems only fair, why should web-apps be different?
If you don't like the idea, well then don't use AGPL licensed software. Write your own or use software under a different license.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byScorpFromHell ( 837952 ) writes:
Mod parent up!
Thanks a bunch for the explanation :)
May your AGPL'ed code always be updated by your end users :D
bydoti ( 966971 ) writes:
The overall post was good, but this part
"the GPL works because it en-forces users to be contributors as well"
not only is untrue, but also fails to make any sense.
It forces nothing to the user. The restriction is only upon distribution: if you distribute the software, modified or not, you must make the source code available.
bymorgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) writes:
No, no. Grandparent is correct. The restriction on AGPL is not only upon distribution. If you modify the code and put it on your website for users to interact with, then the special clause in the AGPL says that you have to distribute it:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresp
bydoti ( 966971 ) writes:
Yeah, but the parent was talking about GPL, not AGPL.
bysumdumass ( 711423 ) writes:
The parent also got a few other things wrong with it too. He said
"BUT because you never distribute that modified code (you only run it on your own server) you don't have to honor the GPL and disclose your modifications."
A user never had to honor the GPL and the GPL never required a User to give changes or anything back.
Something that is disturbing here, if your company uses AGPLed software and components inside the company, how does the give out source apply? The people working there are agents of the sam
bykestasjk ( 933987 ) writes:
What I think you meant to ask was "If I build a webservice with software that is licensed under the AGPL, do I have to distribute changes I make to that software".
The answer to that is YES.
Well you can relicense it and remove the AGPL license at a whim, and relicense it as you like.
This license is targeted pretty much at developers like myself; I have a project called phpDiplomacy [phpdiplomacy.net], and it's currently licensed under BSD.
Using the GPL seemed pointless, because I'm not worried about people selling the code. I am only concerned about someone taking the code, modifying it, running it on their server and making money off it, but not releasing the changes. Because it's a server-side app they wouldn't have to distribute the source to make money off it, so they have no reason to distribute changes.
So for me having a license was only about making sure people couldn't take the code and claim they wrote it, and that's pretty much all BSD does.
I'll probably move from BSD to AGPL now, once I've read it over thoroughly (and hopefully once it becomes OSS approved), and I can definitely remove the BSD license (or any other license) from my own software. I can add and remove licenses as I please, as the copyright holder.
The only restriction on me is that if someone already has a BSD licensed copy now I can't say "Your copy is now AGPL licensed", I can only license future releases differently.
(IANAL YMMV)
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysw155kn1f3 ( 600118 ) writes:
What really disturbs me is that if someone makes use of, say Perl modules, released under AGPL, even if you're not directly using them, and not even aware, this makes all your custom app code AGPL too?
Or this is LGLP-like license, where you can freely use LGPL libraries and keep custom code private?
Can someone explain if this is going to happen?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTony Hoyle ( 11698 ) writes:
Yes - the same as the GPL.
You have to be careful of which licenses you use. If you're unsure.. consult a lawyer.
byFooBarWidget ( 556006 ) writes:
"even if you're not directly using them, and not even aware, this makes all your custom app code AGPL too?"
No it doesn't. This is one of the many FUDs spread against GPL and related licenses. Your own software will never, EVER, suddenly and magically become GPL/LGPL/AGPL/WhateverPL.
What could happen is that you'll have a license violation. You can choose how you want to solve this violation:
1. Relicense your application under a compatible license. Again: this is completely up to you! Nobody can force you to
byAnonymous Coward writes:
What could happen is that you'll have a license violation. You can choose how you want to solve this violation:
1. Relicense your application under a compatible license. Again: this is completely up to you! Nobody can force you to relicense your software.
2. Remove any dependencies on the library in question, by rewriting (parts of) your code.
3. Ask the copyright holders of the library in question whether they'll grant you a commercial license, possibly for a fee.
And this set of options is EXACTLY why many co
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
Maybe I am wrong here but if your code is..
<?php
echo 'blah';
?>
and then you see that I have done all this awesome stuff with your AGPL code and demand the changes, could I just give you..
<?php
include 'mycode.php';
echo 'blah';
?>
Since you have to redistribute changes not your own files it doesn't seem like this license would be much use, just like how GPL2 isn't much use stopping DRM'd linux kernels.
If however I am wrong and you have to redistribute mycode.php I can see this being a real nigh
byjellomizer ( 103300 ) * writes:
Hence part of the problem with GPL and AGPL. Is that FSF assumes that everyone is thinking on the same wave they are which is untrue. Most people/companies would be OK to honor the use of GPL Code but as it keeps on getting stricter and removing loop holes it is just turning people and companies off towards it. I know you bring up Big Face Less corporation steeling as much code as possible and making a system that will make million of dollars off the work of some poor GPL developer who put his heart and
bysumdumass ( 711423 ) writes:
I think your reading too much into things. The FSF seems to want to shoot themselves in the foot whenever possible. They got their fame and fortune being the underdog and claiming that everyone was out to get them.
Whenever there is a certain level of success in the free software/GPL front, they pull some stunt and take it backwards. It seems that their goal is more to perpetuate their notoriety then to help mom and pop shops. Just look at some of their actions recently, they attacked novell for something th
bySancho ( 17056 ) writes:
If you think that GPLv3 pushed the masses away from using Linux, you may want to seek psychiatric help.
bygarett_spencley ( 193892 ) writes:
I've GPL'd some of my code and I adore OSS both philosophically and for all of it's practical glory.
However I am not sure how I feel about this. Simply because with GPL code you're talking about something that someone is going to be running on their own machine and for their own purposes. If there is a problem with a locally executing program the user deserves to be able to fix it themselves. There is also trust issues that OSS goes a ways towards fixing. With the source code available you can audit the cod
byIloinen Lohikrme ( 880747 ) writes:
This might be useful for companies too. We have in example been thinking about releasing our software in open source to expand the usage of our software and to gain more knowledge in the markets about us. However as we are business and a rather small one, releasing the software in example in GPL would be more or less commercial suicide, as our software is purely web based, some bigger service company could just take it and give nothing back...
I really have to read more about AGPL. I think that by combining AGPL + MPL + strong attribution clauses, for us and maybe to many more small developers it could come more lucrative to open source our software, because we still would get changes back, we would have more freedom and we would get attribution for our work. Definitely very good for FSF to publish this license. I really think that in time as there comes more licenses that cover different things, it will come more and more easier and secure to publish software and other works in open source.
twitter
facebook
bypat mcguire ( 1134935 ) writes:
I've been against this clause ever since I heard GPLv3 was adding compatibility. One of the important parts of the GPL is that it allows private development if the changes weren't distributed - this is an important thing, as there's no user to protect if it's made for self consumption. The four freedoms that RMS always speak of aren't threatened by this, as the user is the same as the writer - there's no oppression that needs to be stopped here. The addition is a corruption of the GPL, changing it's purpose from one of freedom for all users to the coercive obtainment of the source code at any cost.
twitter
facebook
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
If your "private development" in use on a public website, then it isn't really private.
byJon Peterson ( 1443 ) writes:
Err, sure it is.
Let's suppose you and some friends want to hack on something. A bit of private development. So you set up a normal webserver, but stick password control on it, so only 6 of you have access.
Well, the AGPL covers that, because it covers anything that is remotely accessible over a network.
byCiarang ( 967337 ) writes:
So you have to release the source code to the six of you that can access it. You already have it. What's the problem?
byJust Some Guy ( 3352 ) writes:
If your "private development" in use on a public website, then it isn't really private.
That's just bizarrely wrong. By your logic, Coca Cola's formula isn't really a trade secret because regular people can buy it. I'll happily give our customers the output of our internal algorithms, but my boss wouldn't be too keen on giving them the algorithms themselves considering they're how we stay in business.
byJust Some Guy ( 3352 ) writes:
You seem to be overlooking the fact that your so called internal algorithms are actually derivative works.
Umm, no, they're not. I'm not talking about taking a CMS and adding a new module to it. I'm talking about using an application server to display the output of a 20-year-old internally-developed application we've written. It's no more a derived work than if running it as a GUI exported over Citrix would make it a derived work of Citrix.
Fortunately, Zope is licensed under the GPL-compatible ZPL so we don't have to deal with any of this anti-Free Software stupidity.
bysayfawa ( 1099071 ) writes:
Okay, imagine the following scenario: you code some software that allows people to do some horrendously complicated and hard mathematical problems. You release it under the GPL and give it to the Gnu Scientific Library [gnu.org]. Some commercial company, like Maple or Mathematica, takes it and installs it on their computers. Then they start charging people large amounts of money to go to a web site, enter in their math problem and have the website spit out the answer after their in-house computers have crunched out t
bypat mcguire ( 1134935 ) writes:
My problem is that the clause is too broad. I'll quote it here to point out what I mean:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
bysayfawa ( 1099071 ) writes:
I think I see what you mean. Sorry for getting all preachy. I guess the phrase "interacting with it remotely through a computer network" needs to be clarified. It's not clear how much code "it" refers to. I probably wouldn't have a problem with a company using a slightly tweaked kernel to run their servers and their services either. But maybe the authors of this new license would?
byGinger Unicorn ( 952287 ) writes:
if it's made for self consumption then you won't be allowing public access to your website and this wont be an issue.
byoliverthered ( 187439 ) writes:
Last time I checked copyright didn't extend to the output of a programme, otherwise Microsoft would own all of your .doc files and everything produced by gcc would have to fall under the GPL.
How can the AGPL work in practice?
bySancho ( 17056 ) writes:
The theory is the same as with any EULA (the AGPL is truly a EULA, unlike the GPL.) The AGPL allows you to use the code if you give the code back to any of your users. If you refuse to do that, you are violating the license, and thus you have no right to use the software.
It's the same thing as Microsoft saying that by using their software, you absolve them of any wrongdoing. It's part of the license. If you try to sue them, you're in violation, and thus never had a right to use the software in the first
byJon Peterson ( 1443 ) writes:
Great! I spend 12 years (count 'em) working to convince first developers, then managers, then commercial directors, and then, finally, lawyers, to see the benefits of open source, and not to fear it. And then this. Great. Thanks.
In an attempt to make life simple for simple folk, I've spent 12 years explaining that there are three kinds of free software:
Public domain software - no copyright, no nothing. Rare and not very useful, but it does exist. Well, it did exist until universities wised up to what some o
byniceone ( 992278 ) * writes:
Now this. It's no longer about distribution, it's about use. Not only that, but we aren't talking websites, we're talking any remote network access. 'Remote' is not defined in the license, so it's while localhost is probably excluded, I've no idea what the status of an intranet would be. What about the intranet of a multi-national?
IANAL, but it seems to me you only have to give the "users" the source. On an intranet all the users are in the company, so there is no need to release the source outside the
byBill Dimm ( 463823 ) writes:
IANAL, but it seems to me you only have to give the "users" the source. On an intranet all the users are in the company, so there is no need to release the source outside the company.
But, do you need to release it to any employee who asks for it, and may they then take it with them when they leave the company and go to work for a competitor?
byBill Dimm ( 463823 ) writes:
But yes, that employee may redistribute the source under the terms of the AGPL. But, even if that employee leaves and works for a competitor, that competitor will need to abide by the same terms.
Except that the competitor wouldn't be required to distribute the source unless the competitor made its own modifications. Suppose company X takes some generic AGPL code, adds a lot of industry-specific code to it (not of any interest to the original project, but very useful to companies in its industry), and uses it on its intranet. Any employee of X has the right, but no obligation, to obtain the source and distribute it, so the employee could sell it (i.e. "I could give it to you, but I won't unless y
bySmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) writes:
Basically you are saying, don't use software if you are not willing to follow the license.
If you can't live with the AGPL, don't use software licensed under it. The spirit of the GPL was that if you modify code, you share it. This has now just been updated to reflect web apps that previously were immune to it.
Don't like it, don't use it. Same as with GPL software.
If you want to dictate license terms, write your own software. You can then set any license you want on it. So what if some people don't want t
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
Basically you are saying, don't use software if you are not willing to follow the license.
At what point does a license become ridiculous? Car manufacturers don't get to dictate how you're allowed to modify your car no matter how much they might want to. Sure software authors have a legal right to do that, but why do you seem to be saying that doing so is morally defensible? It's just an artifact of twisting a system meant to protect artistic expression to also protect useful tools.
byAusIV ( 950840 ) writes:
The AGPL is not new. It's exited for the GPL v2 for quite some time, all this does is create an AGPL for GPL v3.
byIBBoard ( 1128019 ) writes:
I can see where this would be useful.
Say you've got forum software, like phpBB. Lots of people put modifications into it and lots of people release modifications. There are also lots of people who hack in large custom mods and gain from the phpBB base while not releasing anything because it is GPL. If phpBB was AGPLed then major changes like that would have to be released and so anyone modifying, for example, a forum script to turn it into a CMS would have to release their modification. That would then stop people having to re-implement the same CMS functionality just because no-one wanted to release it.
Okay, so it's not necessarily going to be a winner in all cases, and it may dissuade some people from using a script, but I can see where it might be useful.
twitter
facebook
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
phpBB and the modifications are written in PHP. PHP is plain text scripting code. Could you be more specific about what you mean?
Are you talking about forcing people that customise their own phpBB board but don't release their code for distribution? You are not talking about people that release modifications on the phpBB forum at all. You want to force the phpBB user admins to release their private modifications.
So you're saying that:
- Someone that put a lot of effort into making a new theme for their own f
byIBBoard ( 1128019 ) writes:
If (and it's a big 'if') phpBB were to use the AGPL then yes, those bullet points are pretty much what I'm saying. The theming might be different, though, since the theme isn't normally (AFAIK) licensed under the GPL. What I'm talking about is that this kind of license would ensure that all modifications should* be released in the mod area of the script's website.
As for open sourcing mods, I've already released several for Invisionboard v1 when I was in my teens, a couple for phpBB, I've helped fix bugs in
byLingNoi ( 1066278 ) writes:
there would be some degree of putting people off if you required them to release their modifications, but at the same time it does ensure that no-one makes great speed improvements and keeps them to themselves.
and why would you care about that if they did? What difference does it make if someone has improved their code privately (part of freedom 3) but doesn't want to release it? It has no effect on you, the software project or the open source community.
The only way this could have an effect is if they want
byIBBoard ( 1128019 ) writes:
and why would you care about that if they did? What difference does it make if someone has improved their code privately (part of freedom 3) but doesn't want to release it? It has no effect on you, the software project or the open source community.
But it does. It has the effect that the project could be improved in some way but hasn't been, despite the fact that those changes are being used in a public (i.e. website powering) location.
When you make private changes to a GPL app you aren't forced to distribut
byBogtha ( 906264 ) writes:
The trouble with this is that the people purportedly bound by the license are users, not distributors. The GPL works because the people in question are distributing copies and thus need a license. People installing software on a server are not.
In the USA, you have the legal right to make copies of software for the purpose of using it. Copying it to your server is not copyright infringement. Running it is not copyright infringement. You don't need a license. So what compels AGPL users to accept this license and be bound by its terms? Where is the consideration?
twitter
facebook
byxtracto ( 837672 ) writes:
Yeah, that is a very interesting point. GPL is supposed to affect distribution of software. That is why some people (I am among them) argue that it is stupid to show the GPL when users RUN a program, and to make them click accept (it gives the false sense that they have to agree to a lot of crap before using the software... similarly to closed source EULA).
However as you point out, with web software the end users ARE the system administrators! say for example that Moodle started to use the license. The end
bysqlrob ( 173498 ) writes:
That is why some people (I am among them) argue that it is stupid to show the GPL when users RUN a program, and to make them click accept (it gives the false sense that they have to agree to a lot of crap before using the software... similarly to closed source EULA).
I agree as well, but someone did point a reason out to me. Most of the terms are inapplicable to an end user, except one - the warranty disclaimer.
byjohn1040 ( 1191701 ) writes:
I posted this comment on the FSF's site during the commenting period for the AGPL and I will reproduce it here:
AGPL is not enforceable in the United States
Disclaimer: IANAL
I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.
As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:
1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor
Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.
The AGPL is not an EULA.
Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."
The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.
However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf [copyright.gov])
This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf [findlaw.com] Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp [techlawjournal.com]
Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.
Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf [thelen.com] The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.
So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPhilHibbs ( 4537 ) writes:
A lot of the data that a web service sends to the data is client-side code, and even the rest of the markup transmitted was mostly created by the developer of the web service code. I think it is this distribution of code that allows the AGPL to put requirements on the operator of the web service. If they go through and replace all the data that is transmitted to the user, then I guess they could ignore the AGPL since they are not distributing anything that is covered by copyright law.
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
In the USA, you have the legal right to make copies of software for the purpose of using it. Copying it to your server is not copyright infringement. Running it is not copyright infringement. You don't need a license. So what compels AGPL users to accept this license and be bound by its terms? Where is the consideration?
It doesn't say that *you* have to provide the source, it says the *program* has to provide the source. Changing the program to *not* provide the source would be making a derivative work, and therefore require permission from the copyright holder. (Of course if the program uses external facilities to provide the source, I don't really see how the license can prevent you from breaking those facilities...)
Unless john1040 is correct, in which case the whole thing falls apart.
byargent ( 18001 ) writes:
This is another step down the path to the dark side.
First, the FSF extended their definition of derived work to include programs that were compatible with GPLed code but didn't actually contain any GPLed code, bringing the horrors of interface copyrights into the FSF's fold.
Now, they're invoking the madness that modifying but not redistributing software is against the license, which is a tool used to lock end-users in by denying them the right to modify commercial software.
These kinds of clauses and interpr
byMobyDisk ( 75490 ) writes:
IANAL.
First, the FSF extended their definition of derived work...Now, they're invoking the madness that modifying but not redistributing software is against the license
I've never heard of the 2 interpretations you just mentioned, so I'd love to see a link on it. It sure sounds like complete gibberish to me. Firstly, the FSF can "extend their definition" of derived work all they want, but that doesn't change the law. And copyright applies only to the distributor, and that's been a corner stone of free software for a while. I can, and have, modified commercial copyrighted software on my PC before (hacks, patches, etc.) That's legally protected, and I can't imagi
byAnonymous Coward writes:
For the right to modify code to be useful there is an implicit assumption that the database under the program is available. What point is it for a web user, of any level of sophistication, to have the source for some web app, when he doesn't have access to the database it runs on? He can't reproduce his experience. He can only relaunch the same service on another URL with a different database on the backend.
This illustrates nicely that the purpose of the FSF is not to ensure users retain important capabi
bypongo000 ( 97357 ) writes:
I find this license rather onerous, as it basically categorizes the end-user as a distributor, even though no such distribution has occurred, and forces the user, solely on the basis of using the software, into the precarious position of also serving as a distributor for said software. I believe this violates the spirit of F/OSS in that using the software is no longer "free" (as in freedom), as there are now strings attached: Use this software, and you are now obligated to support a distribution channel a
bypetermgreen ( 876956 ) writes:
I don't consider a software as a service operator to be an "end user", they are a middleman providing users with the ability to use software that runs on thier servers. Software as a service was being used to essentially do an end run arround the GPLs requirement to provide the source code.
bypongo000 ( 97357 ) writes:
"This license is essentially the GPLv3..."
Really? Then explain how this GPLv3 clause:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force."
is compatible with the new Affero license? Oh, that clause is not part of the Affero license? Then how can it be classified as "essentially the GPLv3"?
Very misleading. This is a sad day for F/OSS.
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
"This license is essentially the GPLv3..."
Really? Then explain how this GPLv3 clause:
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force."
is compatible with the new Affero license? Oh, that clause is not part of the Affero license? Then how can it be classified as "essentially the GPLv3"?
Very misleading. This is a sad day for F/OSS.
Actually, that clause is in the Affero license. The only difference is that there is an extra section with restrictions on how you can modify the program. (Of course, I can have two sentences which are essentially the same (as determined by diff(1)) but mean completely different things, because the only difference is that one has the word "not" added to it...)
bypongo000 ( 97357 ) writes:
If that's the case, then the clause is not compatible with the additional conditions specified by the Affero license. Unless the word "convey" has now been redefined. In which case, the GPLv3 now defines "convey" differently than the Affero license. Legal hilarity ensues...
byhacker ( 14635 ) writes:
I see the value of this, for "honest" contributors and companies who wish to contribute back, and ensure that those contributions are kept public and available, but... have we just opened another loophole in the licensing?
Let's say I write NeatNewWebService v0.1, and I release it under the APL. Now LoathingBastardCompany decides they like it (and I should note, something very similar has happened before [gnu-designs.com]).
LoathingBastardCompany takes the code, modifies it heavily inside their company, and begins using it
byJust Some Guy ( 3352 ) writes:
The GPLv2 regulates distribution, not usage. Some people claim that GPLv3's new language exerts some control on how you use the software, although I don't quite agree with that. The AGPL does, though, and I hate it for that.
The huge problem is that it makes a special standard for web applications that nothing else is held to. If I host a web app and you use it, I'm not distributing that application to you - I'm running it on your behalf and giving you the output. This is exactly identical to you SSHin
byAlXtreme ( 223728 ) writes:
This is exactly identical to you SSHing into my console server, running a terminal app, and me handing back its output.
Similar, but not exactly. In this case if the terminal app would be licensed under the GPL I would have the right, as a user, to request a copy of the source code of that terminal app.
The identical case would be for me to SSH into your console server, me giving some input file to you while you actually run the application and hand me a copy of the application's output.
I understand what the
byanthm ( 894202 ) writes:
It's bad enough that a 2 million line program written from scratch would suddenly be infected by the GPL by including a 1 line file, but now we are supposed to propagate the virus with our web servers? I am perfectly happy to allow the GPL and its descendants to exist but I am reluctant see its roots dig deeper into the minds of ill-informed developers who do not realize the only goal of this license is to see how far it can spread. Before anyone tries to flame me be aware I am simply expressing my opinion
byBlueParrot ( 965239 ) writes:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corr
byAnonymous Coward writes:
There's a special clause written into the GPLv3 which permits compatibility with exactly this one license. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/ [fsf.org] for more info.
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
The GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions on users. The additional requirement of the AGPL gives users an additional freedom, and the GPLv3 was planned with this in mind already (the GPLv2 is not compatible with this, which was part of the motivation for creating GPLv3).
byTony Hoyle ( 11698 ) writes:
It's a restriction. You can't use it unless you distribute the source. Previously you could use it and not distribute the source, provided you didn't distribute the app.
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
Legally, public performance is not normal use.
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
For instance if you create a picture in PhotoShop, then Adobe would have no claim to it.
Creating a picture in Photoshop and uploading it to a webserver as a static image is different than scripting Photoshop so that it operates on images received from a web service, and returns live results to the user. Try asking Adobe if their EULA covers the second case.
byTimothy Brownawell ( 627747 ) writes:
It places restrictions on the kind of changes you are permitted to make (i.e., it infringes freedom 1 and maybe 3). Like the AC says, it is only compatible with GPLv3 because both it and GPLv3 explicitly say that it is.
byEd Avis ( 5917 ) writes:
It depends what you understand by the spirit of the GPL. If you read the GPL version 2 that came out in 1991, the preamble makes it pretty clear:
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
If all its users are to have the freedom to share and change the software, then that would include users who are accessing it over a web service. So this is a logical step to ensure freedom for software users.
byBlackPignouf ( 1017012 ) writes:
No.
Yes.
No, no, no, no, no....
We're not talking about work created using an application, we're still talking about derivations of an app.
It's just that this app is a web-thingy app, and will never be "distributed" to users, but will just provide some kind of service to them.
So that according to the GPL, devs are not obliged to release modifications they made to the code, and can get away with the "free beer" part without caring much about the "free speech" one.
As always, if this license doesn't suit your nee
byPhilHibbs ( 4537 ) writes:
Are you saying that if I, say, use an AGPL-licensed currency converting web service on my ticket reservation site, I must release the WHOLE site under the AGPL?
I'm not sure about that one, but even if it were true...
That's like making a GPL paint program that forces users to release pictures created with that program under GPL.
No, it's nothing like that!
What this licence is saying - as is quite clear in TFA - is that if I host an AGPL application, and you log in to my server and use it, I have to provide yo
bySmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) writes:
This guy is trolling, he purposefully misreads the license and tries to introduce the old troll that GPL software means that what is produced with that software must be GPL'ed as well. This is offcourse complete and utter nonsense, but it is a regular troll that usually gets modded down pretty quickly.
He just tries a new angle with the AGPL. To make it clear for those who don't understand the license. Slashdot is run on custom code, lets say that it is released under the GPL, you can now take that code, install it on your own server (scream a bit as you release what you have just done) and run your own site with it (although it never will be quite like slashdot unless you hire a finite number of monkeys as your editors). So far so good. Now you modify this code. To hide your shame you don't actually distribute the code in question, just run it on your own server. A GPL license in this case would NOT force you to release these modifications, the GPL only triggers when you distribute the code/program to others. Google for instance uses a modified GPL code, but because they don't distribute are under no obligation to distribute the modified code (they do distribute some of it although they don't have too).
IF however the slash code was released under the AGPL you would be forced to distribute your modifications.
BUT at no point would the END result of the code/program fall under any license other then that which you choose. In this case, the HTML pages created would OFFCOURSE not fall under the AGPL or GPL or ANY license unless you choose one yourselve. (does machine created content fall under basic copyright?)
This is very clear from the license text and only a deliberate misreading by someone wishing to troll could result in any other explenation.
The GPL/AGPL are about the program/code, NOT about the results of the program/code. Anyone who tries to claim something else is an idiot.
It says a lot about slashdot moderation that this tired old troll was modded up. He tries to disguise himself by saying that he is happy to be corrected but before without trying to link Stallman to communism (the gpl is far closer to the true idea of a free market) and without having spouted a lot of outright crap first.
Now if you excuse me, I have to use windows for an hour as punishement for feeding the troll.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byskrolle2 ( 844387 ) writes:
No, no, no, you've completely misunderstood it.
The GPL, and all other licenses based in copyrights, only kick in when you perform the actual copying. Say, for example, that you modify MySQL somehow. If you acquired MySQL under the GPL, and you wish to DISTRIBUTE this modified version, you have to abide by the GPL, and give out the source-code for your modifications alongside. This is the only way the GPL can kick in currently, when someone wishes to distribute modifications of GPL software.
But say that inst
byDr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) writes:
If MySQL was distributed under it, then everyone who built a web app using MySQL, would also have to give away the source code for their web app, if they make it available to users.
Or they will have to pay for a commercial license. Spookily, something aimed at strengthening the sharing aspect of the FLOSS movement may just also increase revenues for companies with FLOSS products tremendously ; any commercial concern who doesn't want people to see their secret sauce is going to have to cough up for a license.
Specific to RDBMs ; GPL only kicks in if you compile in GPL code, or if you link directly to a GPL licensed library. Most RDBMs software is not directly linked to the application
bypetermgreen ( 876956 ) writes:
The GPL is and has always been passed to DERIVIATIONS of an application
The GPL is about enforcing give and take in the "free software" community, you get to use and modify the communities code on condition that when you release an improved version your users get the source to those modifications under the GPL (and hence can feed the code back to the community if they wish which if there is more than a handfull of them one of them probablly will).
The problem has been that companies are making improvements to
byJust Some Guy ( 3352 ) writes:
The problem has been that companies are making improvements to free software but getting arround the requirement to release the source to those improvements to thier users by operating on a service model and not giving the code to thier users in any form (either source or binary).
So what's ethically wrong with that? Distribution has a fairly specific definition, and that ain't it. Suppose that the AGPL replaced the GPL in all GNU tools. If it's good, everyone should want to use it, right? So as part of your business, you give shell access to customers. Now they have the right to ask for the source code to Emacs just because they ran it on your server.
If that doesn't make sense for console programs - and it doesn't - then why is it a good thing for web apps? And if everyone
bySamP2 ( 1097897 ) writes:
Nice to hear, but pardon my ignorance, why the heck does it then refer to those who modify the program as "users"?
Users are those that use the software to produce their own work. If the license doesn't apply to them, but only to those that make changes to the program, it shouldn't refer to the developers as "users" but "authors", "contributors", or "producers of derivative work".
byPhilHibbs ( 4537 ) writes:
Yeah, you're right, the FSF article does overload the term "user" in an unhelpful way.
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
Can someone explain to me just how this license can actually be legally binding?
Copyright law allows the copyright holder control over public performance of their work.
byPofy ( 471469 ) writes:
>Copyright law allows the copyright holder control
>over public performance of their work.
But how is this public performance of the work? I am no expert or even that much knowledgable about "web services" but to my understanding the whole issue comes from the fact that the program (the work) is NOT run publicly but on your own servers, only the result, output, of the program is ever public, or is some compiled version of it sent to the users of the service. After all, if the work WAS performed publicly
byjrumney ( 197329 ) writes:
When a radio station plays a song, they play it in a private studio, and beam the results of playing it out to all their listeners. This is classed as public performance, and needs separate licenses beyond the usage rights that owning the CD gives you.
byPofy ( 471469 ) writes:
>When a radio station plays a song, they play it in a private studio,
>and beam the results of playing it out to all their listeners.
They beam the actual work, the song. If you run a program (a work) on your computer and only send out the result of the program (not the work) there is no public performance of the work, which is what I commented/asked about.
byJon Peterson ( 1443 ) writes:
Good point. In many high level languages (esp. PHP) configuration is done though a block of simple code that just sets variables. So, such apps would have to specifically exclude the config file from the remit of the license. Sounds like a minefield to me.
On the plus side, should be fairly easy to comply for Javascript :)
bySancho ( 17056 ) writes:
So that file doesn't count as a larger work that then must be distributed under the AGPL. If so, then the AGPL is worthless. I can just include my changes to the AGPL project and distribute a clean version of the source, but with the "include \"mystuff.php\"" and a few new function calls. My changes don't go out (they were just included!)
The whole thing is sticky and not nearly as well thought out as the GPL.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
509 commentsTrump Orders Treasury Secretary To Stop Minting Pennies
●
491 commentsTrump Signs Order Aiming To Close the Education Department
●
464 commentsTrump Opens Trade Talks Window While Threatening China With Steeper Tariffs
●
381 commentsScott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
●
361 commentsChina Halts Rare Earth Exports Globally
Cannabis Compound Said To "Halt Cancer"
Vote To Eliminate Leap Seconds
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Cannabis Compound Said To "Halt Cancer"
383 comments
Vote To Eliminate Leap Seconds
531 comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...