Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 14:38 UTC (Wed) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) In reply to: Why I have trouble trusting FSF by rfontana Parent article: Desktop Summit: Copyright assignments Which specifically means that someone can take my GPLv3 code and make a derived work, providing the code of that work only under the AGPLv3 license. If you consider AGPLv3 problematic, that means GPLv3 just lost part of its copyleftness - the code is not guaranteed to "stay free" and available under GPLv3 in exactly the same way GPLv2 guaranteed it to stay free forever but the more permissive MIT/BSD licenses did not. Or do I understand the issue wrong?

Posted Aug 10, 2011 15:58 UTC (Wed) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (11 responses)

It depends on what you mean by "free".

By some people, Apache2.0 is more free than GPL (any version) because it gives the freedom to make your code (and other's modifications to it) proprietary.

For others, GPL (any version) is more free than Apache2.0 because it guarantees that not only your code remains free, but also modifications that others make *must* be free.

So, if you are one of the latter guys (as FSF clearly is), AGPLv3 is more free than GPLv3, since modifications *must* be free even without a distribution of a binary, just because of a mere "utilization" even remotely through a web service.

On the other hand, if you are in the former camp, AGPLv3 is less free than GPLv3, because of the very same reason. But if you are in such a camp, you'd probably not use the GPL in the first place, so I think the issue of the v3-plus is moot.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 22:07 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (4 responses)

If you're an upstream project, releasing code under the GPLv3, and then a downstream decides to fork your codebase, and release all their changes under the AGPLv3 (so you can't reintegrate them without changing licenses), that could be rather upsetting. (That's just like BSD code being converted to GPL. But the GPL didn't used to allow for that possibility.)

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 23:39 UTC (Wed) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (3 responses)

I'm not sure I buy your argument. You (upstream) could have licensed your code under LGPL, somebody added something and licensed his/her parts under GPL and you still can't reintegrate them, regardless of Affero and v2 vs v3 argument, right?

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 11, 2011 0:05 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

that is part of the decision in licensing your code under the LGPL (just like someone can do that if you license your code under the BSD license)

prior to this, that has not been something that people who use the GPL had to deal with.

and if you think this sort of thing never causes problems, then you've been missing a LOT of flame wars started by BSD people complaining because GPL people use their code in ways that they can't benifit from.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 11, 2011 12:34 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Those must be BSD people who secretly whish they were not, because being able to integrate others' changes is NOT what their license was designed for.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 11, 2011 19:47 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

That is not problems, that is just BSDers whining over their license working as intended.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 23:05 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (5 responses)

> So, if you are one of the latter guys (as FSF clearly is), AGPLv3 is more free than GPLv3, since modifications *must* be free even without a distribution of a binary, just because of a mere "utilization" even remotely through a web service.

I suggest you read the actual text of the AGPLv3 instead of the summary by the FSF. The AGPLv3 clause restrict modification of the code, not use.

Really, you are making a false dichotomy. People can favor the GPL over both the MIT license and the AGPL.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 23:41 UTC (Wed) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (4 responses)

I've actually read it. IANAL, but my understanding is that what I wrote is correct.

If you elaborate more and point us at the section(s) where this restriction is happening, instead of spreading FUD, that would be great....

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 13, 2011 4:59 UTC (Sat) by dberlin (subscriber, #24694) [Link] (3 responses)

(Note: As anyone can tell you, I am not an AGPL fan, but in this case, the poster above you is correct).

You want section 13, where it clearly states:
"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 ..."

(emphasis mine).

Nowhere else will you find anything related to releasing source due to network interaction.
It is only triggered if you modify the program first.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 15, 2011 15:29 UTC (Mon) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (2 responses)

From what you say, it sounds like you do like GPL, but don't like AGPL because of this "modification" issue.

If you *modify* a GPL program (not Affero, any version), you must offer all its users the source code of your modifications, so it's exactly the same on these grounds. How can you like GPL and dislike AGPL?

What *is* different is who is considered "user":
- For GPL, user means somebody who received the program (even in a binary) and is running it on a machine where this user has some kind of control
- For AGPL, user means anybody who is "using" the program in whatever mean (e.g. as a webservice), even if the person hasn't "received" anything.

Thus, on the matter of "who the user is" you can like one and dislike the other, but that's not what you wrote (it's actually what I did wrote in my original comment that has been FUDed)

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 22, 2011 11:32 UTC (Mon) by frabcus (guest, #25169) [Link] (1 responses)

That's a really nice way of making it clear, thank you.

I suspect that people who like the GPL but not the AGPL don't develop web applications. It makes no sense to license a web application under the GPL, as it is in that circumstance no longer a copyleft license.

An open source web application should either be licensed with BSD or with AGPL.

Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 22, 2011 11:46 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

it depends on how much you worry about the cloud subscription model.

if that's a huge worry for you, then the GPL doesn't help you much, but if you think that the app is far more likely to be run on people's servers, then the GPL is just as good for a web app as it is for any other app.