Normalize the use of #AGPLv3 for its original purpose: to help protect the freedoms of the end-users of networked services like #Mastodon, not to help build a proprietary software business model (in which alternative commercial licenses are sold because the obligations of AGPLv3 are "scary").
(Personal opinion).
reshared this
Pierre Bourdon
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •AGPLv3 doesn't really do that though -- the license is so badly written that you can entirely comply with it by adding a (real) source code link in your fork, but then running that fork behind a proxy which strips the link. Perfectly legal per the license.
(This all comes from the fact that AGPL tries to enforce usage restrictions, which are against Free Software principles, via weird copyright hacks that don't really work.)
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •Pierre Bourdon
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •it's not a loophole. AGPLv3 is basically just GPLv3 + clause 13, which is "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"
You have to make your fork advertise its source code. But there is nothing that prevents you from running that fork behind an HTTP proxy which then strips this offer.
Eric Schultz (parody)
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •@delroth it's a known possible loophole but I don't see a way around it.
I don't think I'd want to defend that decision in court though.
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Eric Schultz (parody) • • •Michael Downey 🚩
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •@wwahammy @delroth
I'm not sure how making an offer for source that users can neither see nor access, could possibly be argued as having actually made an offer, but IANAL.
Things like "I wrote a check but never mailed it" generally doesn't fly in courts.
#Copyleft #AGPL #FreeSoftware
Eric Schultz (parody)
in reply to Michael Downey 🚩 • • •Strypey
in reply to Michael Downey 🚩 • • •@downey
Exactly what I thought. I don't think the arguments you're responding to are made in good faith anyway. The clue is here;
@delroth
> AGPL tries to enforce usage restrictions, which are against Free Software principles
Copyleft is not a "usage restriction", it's a prohibition on such restrictions (via proprietary re-use).
> via weird copyright hacks that don't really work
Factually wrong. GPL has been enforced in court on multiple occasions by SFLC, SFC and others.
@msw @wwahammy
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Strypey • • •@strypey @downey @delroth @wwahammy I wouldn't go so far as to say arguments posted here are in bad faith. If one's objective here is to advance the cause of #SoftwareFreedom then we will naturally have debates, sometimes spirited ones, about the best ways to go about doing that.
Relatively speaking, AGPLv3 *is* less tested in courts compared to GPLv2.
Pierre Bourdon
in reply to Strypey • • •@strypey you're fighting a strawman. I never said that copyleft was a usage restriction, or that GPL didn't work.
I said that AGPL's attempt at using a copyright license to try and enforce terms on usage (but not really, wink wink) is an untested hack which is full of loopholes.
I'm unsure why you're inserting yourself in a discussion about open source licenses when you don't seem to differentiate GPL from AGPL.
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •@delroth @strypey I don't see AGPLv3's obligations in "usage" of the software to be substantially different to how GPLv3 can be "used" (or not used) to create new software works.
For example, to enjoy the permission to run the program for any purpose (Freedom 0), you have to make a promise not to enforce DRM anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA for derivative works. You are effectively "restricted" from creating a Digital Rights Management system by "using" GPLv3 software components.
Strypey
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •@delroth
> you're fighting a strawman
I apologize for misrepresenting your point. It might help if your posts laid out your argument in a bit more detail, so we don't have to guess at what the meat of the argument might be.
> you don't seem to differentiate GPL from AGPL.
Since you've clarified that your comments were targeted at clause 13 of AGPL, not copyleft itself, you're right that GPL enforcement is off-topic. Again, my apologies.
@msw @wwahammy @downey
Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •@delroth
> AGPL's attempt at using a copyright license to try and enforce terms on usage
IANAL but my lay understanding is that copyright prevents me making a copy of a piece of code, without permission from the copyright holder. If I can't copy it, I can't use it in any way. A copyright license - which all software licenses are, libre or otherwise - gives me permission to copy, and the copyright holder can use it to enforce any limits on usage they like.
(1/2)
@msw @wwahammy @downey
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Strypey • • •@strypey @delroth @wwahammy @downey there have been arguments about how to scope the permissions and obligations of a copyright license.
Some argue that you can write any terms you want in a copyright license. I don't know of any lawyers that say that is a good idea, as you can run afoul of copyright misuse defenses (at least in some jurisdictions).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyri…
term
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Strypey
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •> you can run afoul of copyright misuse defenses (at least in some jurisdictions)
Intriguing. I didn't know these existed. Might be worth pointing this out to the more militant factions of the Shared Source crowd (eg the ones who use the pro-vaccination software licenses).
@delroth @wwahammy @downey
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Strypey • • •m.youtube.com/watch?v=vTsc1m78…
What Comes After Open Source
YouTubeMatt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •MongoDB's Server Side Public License is likely unenforceable
VanL (Process Mechanics)Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •lists.opensource.org/pipermail…
[License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
lists.opensource.orgStrypey
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •@delroth
> the Vaccine License was a strawman put forward pseudonymously by Bruce Perens
Really, that's a relief. I feel a bit silly now, although it's nice to know the person who punked me was Bruce Perens, who I highly respect. That hoax license is a really good satire of what's wrong with that whole class of morality licenses.
SPPL and the various other 'I can use yours but you can't use mine' licenses are a different kettle of fish of course...
@wwahammy @downey @richardfontana
Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •@delroth
As you said, the only difference between GPL(v3) and AGPL(v3) is clause 13. Again, IANAL, but my understanding of 13 is to clarify that supplying a network service using the code, counts as distribution of the code. So all the terms in the rest of the license still apply, including obligation to provide source code to end users. If it wasn't enforceable, TruthSocial wouldn't have published their source code when merely threatened with AGPL enforcement.
@msw @wwahammy @downey
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Strypey • • •@strypey @delroth @wwahammy @downey is has not been argued as "distribution" but rather "public performance".
See lwn.net/Articles/541981/ for more details.
SCALE: The life and times of the AGPL
lwn.netStrypey
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •> not been argued as "distribution" but rather "public performance".
Ah, I'm guessing describing a network services as a "public performance" is the legal hack that @delroth referred to. Seemed to convince one of the world's most litigious men to publish his source code though, so...
@wwahammy @downey
silverwizard
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • •Pierre Bourdon
in reply to silverwizard • • •silverwizard
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • •Pierre Bourdon
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •clearly the spirit of the license would be that "you can't use the forked software in a context where it doesn't advertise its source code to users".
But that's not how it's written/implemented. Simple reason: this would be against the FSF's Freedom Zero, "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose".
gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.…
What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
www.gnu.orgMatt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Pierre Bourdon • • •@delroth I put the "you can run a version behind a proxy that removes the prominent advertisement" argument in the general bucket of "but you can circumvent the license with a simple wrapper".
There are many ways that people have tried to circumvent copyleft licenses, but accidental non-compliance is most common.
Community-oriented enforcement starts with education.
sfconservancy.org/copyleft-com…
Copyleft Compliance Projects - Software Freedom Conservancy
sfconservancy.orgEric Schultz (parody)
Unknown parent • • •Pierre Bourdon
Unknown parent • • •@lbruno I also wish that's what the AGPLv3 was enforcing. That would make it a somewhat useful license.
It's not though. Clause 13 is extremely short and easy to read. It adds very specific requirements to the base GPLv3 license, and none of what you describe (ownership of a hypothetical proxy, etc.) is part of it.
If you want to debate this further then please quote specific parts of the license text that support your interpretation, otherwise I'm very uninterested in this discussion.
الجبر خوارزمی
Unknown parent • • •@delroth you're defending the hypothetical proxy by comparing it with some other software which is in the receivers control, like an advert blocker or a forward proxy
when the hypothetical agpl-stripping proxy is instead under your control, and has no legitimate justification nor purpose
and then you're offering me up as insane on foot of this unwarranted comparison, all while ignoring the plainly visible fact that “what merit is there in stripping the notice?” has no plausible answer?
@msw
Pierre Bourdon
Unknown parent • • •@lbruno AGPLv3 has deliberately chosen a very specific wording for its restrictions, making it really hard to argue for interpreting its spirit vs. letter.
If the proxy isn't the user to whom the offer must be extended, then the user's web browser probably isn't either, and thus an ad blocker filtering your source code advertisement means you violate the license. Or a forward proxy running on a corp network. It would be an insane interpretation, and not supported by the letter of the AGPL.
Matt "msw" Wilson
Unknown parent • • •الجبر خوارزمی
Unknown parent • • •@delroth and at least one judge here in Europe has decided that the GPL is a contract -- specifically in France
i'd be wary of trying to defend a smart-alec position in front of a judge, regardless of whether the agpl is a license or a badly-written eula
Mark Keisler
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Mark Keisler • • •Mark Keisler
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Mark Keisler • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •One might ask, "Why does the #AGPLv3 #FreeSoftware license exist? Who is it for?"
You can find answers in the talk that Bradley M. Kuhn, Policy Fellow and Hacker-in-Residence of @conservancy, gave at #SCALE11x in 2013.
#FOSS #OpenSource #Copyleft #Licensing for #SaaS
ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/SCALE-2013…
Affero GPLv3: Why It Exists & Who It’s For?
ebb.orgMatt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •A long form summary of the talk by @n8 was published in @LWN
lwn.net/Articles/541981/
SCALE: The life and times of the AGPL
lwn.netMatt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •"""
Rather, the authors of the GPLv2 did not foresee the dramatic takeoff of web applications—and that was not a failure, strictly speaking, since no one can foresee the future.
"""
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •"""
the community needs to be aware that the AGPL can be—and often is—abused. This is usually done through "up-selling" and license enforcement done with a profit motive, he said. MySQL AB (now owned by Oracle) is the most prominent example;
"""
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •So, Bradley *did* foresee the future of #AGPLv3 abuse. Only a few months later, Oracle changed the license of #BerkeleyDB to AGPLv3.
lwn.net/Articles/557820/
Debian, Berkeley DB, and AGPLv3
lwn.netRep. Eric Gallager (no "h"!)
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Rep. Eric Gallager (no "h"!) • • •Rep. Eric Gallager (no "h"!)
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Rep. Eric Gallager (no "h"!) • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •"The falsehoods of anti-AGPL propaganda" by @drewdevault
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #SoftwareFreedom #AGPLv3
drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Ant…
The falsehoods of anti-AGPL propaganda
drewdevault.comBrendan Conoboy
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •the case where somebody hopes google hires them to further non-AGPL code bases that they find valuable, like an informal anonymous internship. Perhaps people in this situation would do better to dual license, like Cygnus did with cygwin.
n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Adam Leventhal
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Tim Bray
in reply to Adam Leventhal • • •steve o'grady
in reply to Tim Bray • • •Tim Bray
in reply to steve o'grady • • •Fair enough, but, speaking as a long-time AGPL skeptic, I think @msw has a point here.
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Tim Bray • • •Matt "msw" Wilson reshared this.
PedroMJ
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to PedroMJ • • •PedroMJ
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to PedroMJ • • •PedroMJ
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Tim Bray
in reply to PedroMJ • • •@pedromj @sogrady @ahl
Most people know nothing about the variations in open-source licenses, nor should they need to.
Hmm, if someone were trying to pick a license and asked me for advice, I'd ask them questions and make a recommendation, but if they instead asked “where could I go and read up on all this stuff?” I wouldn’t have a good answer. Matt, what would you recommend?
Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Tim Bray • • •Open Source Law, Policy and Practice
OUP AcademicPedroMJ
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Jacob
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to steve o'grady • • •@sogrady @timbray @ahl it's trending, but ICYMI...
mastodon.social/@mattsheffield…
Matthew Sheffield (@mattsheffield@mastodon.social)
MastodonTim Bray
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •@sogrady @ahl
If you scroll down my timeline there are a couple of pretty funny takes. Masto town is giggly this evening.
Ivan Gayton
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •#AGLv3 rocks. It enables the kind of win-win sharing and community development for networked services that local only software has benefited from for decades.
When corporations tell you AGPL is scary and incompatible with developers earning a living, and offer their own "business-friendly" alternatives, don't be fooled.
Brian Jones
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •Matt "msw" Wilson
in reply to Brian Jones • • •@bjones yes, I think that software being available under AGPLv3 license is better in many ways than software being closed off under proprietary licenses.
But the licensor of the software needs to understand what freedoms they are giving via AGPLv3, and that includes the freedom to compete in free markets.
AGPLv3 is not designed to protect the licensor (apart from warranty disclaimer, etc.). It protects freedoms for the user.
As long as the licensor groks that, it's all good.
maswan
in reply to Matt "msw" Wilson • • •