Re: Licenses -- webapp users protection

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, so I've explained why Affero-like licenses do not let users know
> the source code which manages their data, but it is still repeated as
> if it were true.  Is it understood why these licences fail when faced
> with an untrustworthy service provider?
>
> Merely repeating the same falsehood will not make it true.

Anything can fail with untrustworthy situations. That is a particular and 
extreme case, and even so you can use law to try to enforce the AGPLv3 
license fulfillment.

If you follow such type of rationales anything can fail. I do not manage to 
see such falsehood!

The current AGPLv3 draft is based on GPLv3. If you think the AGPLv3 clause has 
some problem, please add your comment on the draft so it can be fixed [1] You 
could additionally report it at this email list.

  [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html


> >   2. try to avoid the split of the association. The bigger is
> >      the association the stronger it will be.
>
> Rather, this is almost guaranteeing that the association will split,
> between people who think that Affero clauses are OK for free software
> and those who think such use restrictions are non-free.

Using the Expact license will not solve the "untrustworthy service provider" 
problem.

What advantage would get the webapp users if the project use Expat instead 
AGPLv3? Nothing.  Users will get just more risk to be locked in the webapp.

One of the things the project needs is offer freedom to the webapp user: you, 
me, ...

What license guarantee more freedom to the webapp user, Expat or the current 
AGPLv3 draft?  Obviously the AGPLv3 which force that "any modified version be 
given to all users interacting with the webapp".

I am sure webapp users will appreciate positively that the license speak about 
offering an opportunity to receive the webapp source code.

As you know, this project is all about Free Software, about user freedom.


> > > 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.
>
> Well, how to participate in the project management?  Will we be
> able to take stakes in GNU Herds Ltd or similar?  One member, one
> vote?

My personal opinion and proposal is:

  * One member, one vote. [2]  That matches with the current
    association Charter.

      [2] http://gnuherds.org/charter#Membership

  * After such base is working, moved to FSF hosts, with the
    FSF campaign done, we will be able to begin the next phase.


Please, feel free to expose you personal opinion and proposal.


> It looks like discussions on this list can be trivially trumped 
> by confusing pronouncements of the GNU project leaders, which is a
> problem.

I will follow working to be ready to move the project to the FSF hosts, as a 
job site managed by the association (one member, one vote), as is exposed at 
the association Charter.

The FSF has just something to say about the Free Software subject. And all 
what RMS has said has been accompanied with a good and clean rationale. For 
example, you should begin to understand that documentation is documentation 
and that software is software, so the criteria to be applied to documentation 
_could_ be not the same than which must be applied to software.


Current skills classification at the GNU Herds webapp:

  * Pending to classify

  Classifying Software (programs, languages, protocols, specifications,
  software distributions, etc.) as Free or Non-Free Software:
  * Free Software
  * Almost-Free Software
  * Non-Free Software

  Classifying Hardware:
  * Hardware

  Classifying Documentation:
  * Documentation

  Others flags:
  * Unknown
  * Abstract


Note we do not classify 'Hardware' or 'Documentation' skills, we just flag it 
as hardware or documentation, so it can be noted that it is not software, and 
so not classified as Free or Non-Free, at least in this phase of the job site 
development. At this phase we are only classifying Software.


Maybe we have currently different opinions about some specific points, but I 
think we agree about the general goal.

Comments and flames are always needed!,
Best regards MJ,
Davi