Re: Licenses -- webapp users protection

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I'd love to see GNU Herds using a Free (as in near-universally
> > > acclaimed as Free) Software webapp *today*, not only if it becomes
> > > strong enough.
> >
> > What license do you propose? GPLv3?
>
> I'd propose MIT/Expat or zlib as first choice, GPLv2+ as second
> choice.

After thinking about it again,  I think that due to the MIT/Expat and others 
licenses do not include the Affero-like clause, it would not add value to the 
project but rather it would take the webapp-user's freedom away!

We must use an Affero-like license to:

  1. keep the webapp-user's freedom. Users must be able to know
     the source code which manages their data.

  2. try to avoid the split of the association. The bigger is
     the association the stronger it will be.

     We must avoid that others take the code and lock it in
     their web server, creating a parallel association. If
     they do, at least we want be able to get the modifications
     they do to the code.


About GPLv2 and GPLv3,

 "It is essential for people to have the freedom to make
  modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing
  those modifications. However, putting the program on a server
  machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so
  it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in
  that special case. Developers who wish to address this might
  want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network
  server use."

  Ref.: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods


I think we must develop a web application which provides freedom to its 
_users_. That is key for this kind of project, an association.

  Affero GPLv3: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html


Anyhow, I think the GNU Herds project must accept patches licensed with any 
Affero GPLv3 compatible license:
  * GPLv3,
  * MIT/Expat and any other BSD-like license,
  * etc.



> > How many of you  will start to write code tomorrow if we change today to
> > GPLv3; and for how long will you write code?
>
> We are three at present, but won't start on this tomorrow if that's
> change-day (our marketing budget is already squeezed); and we'll write
> code for as long as there are bugs and we're using the service, all
> else being equal.


> > [...]:  I forget to comment that, IMHO,  AGPLv3 will be the best
> > license to use in this software due to using AGPLv3 will force the FSF or
> > any other hosting to offer the download of the source code to their uses.
> > Therefore users of this project will be always sure about what code
> > manages its data! That is another key point IMHO.
>
> Sorry to tell you that I think that simply isn't so: one can't usually
> prove that the code offered for download by ANOther Hosting is the one
> actually used on their app.  AGPL forbids doing otherwise, but doesn't
> force it.
>
> AGPL is a massive distraction from the best ways of ensuring users
> will be always sure about what code manages their data: user
> participation in the project management!

We can have both,
  * AGPLv3 licensing, to enforce it with law if we need it, and
  * participate in the project management too.


> (Yes, you're doing fairly well on that so far, but could go further...)

IMHO, the Affero-like clause is a must for this project. Freedom for webapp 
users.

Very best regards MJ,
Davi