[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Affero GPL vs others licenses

From: Davi Leal
Subject: Re: Affero GPL vs others licenses
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:45:44 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5


Now, what we need is avoid a fork-and-lock. Later we could relax this 

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > Yes, all depends about you want.  When we chose the license we wanted to
> > be sure that if others get the source code and modify it, we are allowed
> > to get such modifications too.  When we talk about a webapp, GPL v2 does
> > not guarantee it due to there is not binary distributed to the user but a
> > webapp whose source is installed at an internet server.
> In any situation, GPLv2 doesn't guarantee you get modifications if
> others get the source code and modify it.  Also, GPLv2 doesn't
> guarantee any user gets the source except those who get the binary.
> It is not use which gets you the source: it is getting the binary.
> Do you use the GPL for your non-webapps, or do you use some licence
> with a required publication or required upstream contribution clause?
> I like the GPL and don't see the so-called webapp loophole as
> significantly different to the somebody-else's-computer loophole.

The GPL v2 is not perfect. That is because a GPL v3 is in the works.

> > > Affero GPL gives source to all users, whereas GNU GPL gives source to
> > > all binary recipients.  Affero GPL adds use restrictions, which I
> > > think are a pain because they limit your freedom to adapt the program
> > > to your needs,

All depends on what you want. Personally, I know what I want. What do you want 

> > It does not limit your freedom to adapt the program to your needs, it
> > just force you to release such modifications, as the GPL v2 does when
> > talking about binary distributed applications.
> It does limit possible adaptations.  For example, try adapting a
> program under Affero GPL with 2d triggered to a networked system where
> HTTP cannot be used for some reason.

In a networked system there is always a networked way to offer the source 
code. Anyway you could offer it from others networks, as we do at Savannah.

> Also, 'it's trivial to get a copy of the program, not modify it at all,
> and setup a wholly separate filtering proxy to ensure no one actually
> can activate the "immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete
> source".'

Are you talking about not fulfil the Affero license? !.

> 'If the license was effective, and it covered a large program, you
> wouldn't be able to use it on small sites since the "request source"
> would be a trivial denial of service attack -- if not on your machine
> or connection, potentially on your wallet for those of us who have to
> pay for traffic.'

We use Savannah to keep the source code.

> 'It doesn't work well in the general case, either. Taking the RPSL as
> an example; if everything (linux, glibc, everything) were licensed
> under it, you'd be required to make the source code to the entire
> system available as soon as you give anyone else an ssh account. It's
> also unstable: if you have to apply a security patch to your webserver
> yourself because Debian is running a day late and you're getting a bit
> paranoid, you suddenly find yourself in a position of having
> externally deployed some modifications, and as well as checking the
> security fix worked, you'll suddenly have to find some way to make the
> source code publically available too.'

Too much work?. No comment :)

> 'These clauses fundamentally aim to be restrictions on use, which
> we've never allowed in free software' [Anthony Towns, 7 Mar 2003]

GPL v3 will add restrictions about patents, etc.  It is just the evolution, 
you get something new when you do something never done before.

> You may also be interested that David Turner (who has often answered
> address@hidden to me) wrote in March 2003 "If there's no way to rewrite
> the license to fix this, then I would assume that (2)(d) won't end up
> in GPLv3."

The current plan is relicense to GPL v3, with or without "(2)(d)".

> > As usual, it is just my current personal opinion.
> Understood and same here.

Anyway, I am going to expose our case, again, to address@hidden, with copy to 
this list, just to check if we are wrong.

P.S.: I remember you the open questions about the problems you exposed: 
English country, Cookies, etc.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]