Why I have trouble trusting FSF

Posted Aug 10, 2011 23:05 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) In reply to: Why I have trouble trusting FSF by davide.del.vento Parent article: Desktop Summit: Copyright assignments > 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.

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.