Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that would still protect source-code redistribution on line. First, do no harm. Any such license must, at a minimum, guarantee that any activity which is not restricted by copyright law, is not restricted by the license. The AGPL fails that pretty conclusively by defining distribution more broadly than copyright law. If your work based on the Program is designed to interact with users through a computer network, your work based on the Program must prominently provide to all users who interact with it through a computer network the opportunity to receive the complete source code for your work based on the Program via that same network and the same protocol Well, at least you've avoided that problem by only restricting modified versions. However, this type of restriction on modification may fail the DFSG (like GPL 2c, which is normally avoided because most programs *don't* emit that sort of message). It would, in any case, require that (for example) an ssh daemon based on a work under this license provide source code to anyone using ssh to connect. Or perhaps to anyone *trying* to connect, whether or not they succeed. Is this really desirable? It also specifies networks. Specifying implementation details in a license is always a bad idea. A better version -- though it might still not be free, it's as close as I can think of to the AGPL condition while having an outside chance of being DFSG-free -- would work something like this: * If you run the program in a manner such that it is intended to be used by the general public, and you do so in a manner which requires a copyright license from the program's copyright holder, then you must provide the opportunity to receive the source code for the program to any such user. This attaches conditions only to the undesired activity -- not to modification, which can be done for many purposes -- and specifically avoids contaminating any activities which don't require a copyright license. Note incidentally that to make a GPL-like license with more restrictions than the GPL, you must chop the preamble and use the FSF's permission to make a derived license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote: I doubt that it is compliant with the Dissident Problem by your opinions ( plural your), but I think that it's well within line of all of the other requirements, I contend that the dissident problem is not the only sticking point; fundamentally you are trying to impose use restrictions, not just distribution restrictions. As long as it's acknowledged to be non-free, we can probably stop using d-l as the forum for it. This will be my last post to the list on the topic for now. I'll reply privately of course. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía: In response section 6: (So that I can reference, the full section:) 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it. If you look closely, it says subject to these terms and conditions and the rights granted herein, not subject to the same terms and conditions under which you received the Program nor the rights granted to you. I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added at all? You can, if you remove the preamble. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL In response to the dissident problem: I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available through some computer network. Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself, like in the GPL. If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they have already incriminated themselves Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code might include workflow code that reflects the structure of the dissident organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Jacobo Tarrio wrote: O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía: In response section 6: (So that I can reference, the full section:) 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it. If you look closely, it says subject to these terms and conditions and the rights granted herein, not subject to the same terms and conditions under which you received the Program nor the rights granted to you. I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added at all? You can, if you remove the preamble. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL In response to the dissident problem: I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available through some computer network. Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself, like in the GPL. If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they have already incriminated themselves Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code might include workflow code that reflects the structure of the dissident organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating. In response to You can, if you remove the preamble Yes, I realized that just a bit too late, but have now made a hybrid license. The FAQ doesn't make it clear whether you should maintain the FSF Copyright ... on the one hand, the FAQ seems pretty insistant that you remove all reference to GNU or FSF, but on the other hand, it's certainly still copyrighted by the FSF. :( In response to An interface to the program, not the program itself Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference? I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the software. In response to the dissident problem: I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. So what do they do? They don't put it on a public server. This is not discrimination against these dissidents, because they are not required to put it on a public server. Well, my proposed modified license also does not require that they put it on a public server. Even if they do put it on a public server, they can put it behind a .htpasswd file. Users who are blocked by the .htpasswd file never interact with the program, and hence the code does not need to be sent. Realistically, to most users, and even to most programmers most of the time, a binary is just a black hole that produces output. Source is what makes it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running over a network. And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction between having a binary on one's system and running it through other means. Just my opinion though *shrugs* - Gregor Richards -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:57:39 -0700, Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jacobo Tarrio wrote: O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía: In response section 6: (So that I can reference, the full section:) 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it. If you look closely, it says subject to these terms and conditions and the rights granted herein, not subject to the same terms and conditions under which you received the Program nor the rights granted to you. I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added at all? You can, if you remove the preamble. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL In response to the dissident problem: I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available through some computer network. Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself, like in the GPL. If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they have already incriminated themselves Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code might include workflow code that reflects the structure of the dissident organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating. In response to You can, if you remove the preamble Yes, I realized that just a bit too late, but have now made a hybrid license. The FAQ doesn't make it clear whether you should maintain the FSF Copyright ... on the one hand, the FAQ seems pretty insistant that you remove all reference to GNU or FSF, but on the other hand, it's certainly still copyrighted by the FSF. :( In response to An interface to the program, not the program itself Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference? I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the software. In response to the dissident problem: I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. So what do they do? They don't put it on a public server. This is not discrimination against these dissidents, because they are not required to put it on a public server. Well, my proposed modified license also does not require that they put it on a public server. Even if they do put it on a public server, they can put it behind a .htpasswd file. Users who are blocked by the .htpasswd file never interact with the program, and hence the code does not need to be sent. Realistically, to most users, and even to most programmers most of the time, a binary is just a black hole that produces output. Source is what makes it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running over a network. And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction between having a binary on one's system and running it through other means. Just my opinion though *shrugs* - Gregor Richards -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. Err, sorry, let me briefly correct myself here... I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. They have to provide the sources ... or a written offer for them, to anyone who actually downloads the binary, etc, etc. But the basic point is still valid. -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Hi Gregor. Let's see if I can understand your motivations, and help you. ** Gregor Richards :: In response to An interface to the program, not the program itself Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference? I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the software. You have to have in mind that when you copyleft something, you are not only (potentially at least) augmenting the commons freedom, but you are also diminishing the individual freedom of your licensees. What do I mean? Well, if you license your software under the MIT/BSD, you have given maximum freedom to your licensee, at the potential cost to the commons freedom, because your licensee can improve your software and make a proprietary version. If you license your software under the GPL, you potentially augment the commons freedom (because if someone improves your software, the improved version will necessarily stay free -- or not be distributed at all) at the cost of removing some freedom from your direct and indirect licensees. What the DFSG does, IMHO, is to strike a balance between minimum and maximum commons and licensees' freedoms. What has not being pacified yet, even here in d-l, is exactly if access to the interface of a program is equivalent -- in terms of the balance between commons and licensees' freedoms -- to the access to the program itself. And *that* is the opinion you seemed to express with am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference?. I, for one, see a very significant difference between having access to the program itself and to its interface... Including, but not restricted to, a hypotetical dissident organization for which access to the program (even in binary form) can reveal details of the organization to the Evil Government that simple, plain access to its interface (even in a publicly accessed server) can hide those issues. Your argument seems to be that there is no additional onus in giving to someone access to some program when you are giving this same person access to the interface of said program. I disagree, altough not strongly. it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running over a network. And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction between having a binary on one's system and running it through other means. Just my opinion though *shrugs* This is an interesting point-of-view. In fact, I see why many consider the public performance thing a loophole in the GPL. I regard, IMHO, the GPL as being (de facto, not by a guideline) the borderline commons versus licensees case of a Free Software license. Explaining: not many more-restrictive-than the GPL licenses are considered DFSG-free; even the GPL, if the licensor chooses to use its clause #8 (geographic distribution limitation), for instance, can be considered non-DFSG-free; and finally, many of the onerous-to-the-licensee exceptions in the GPL are, by design, reflected in the DFSG. This fact adds a difficulty when you try to give the commons an additional potential freedom, by onerating the licensee when he is not distributing, but only publically performing the work -- and you still want to consider your work DFSG-free. To clarify a little bit more on the public performance thing: if I GPL a song and establish that its partiture is the source code, if you record this song and send your .mp3 around, you must make the partiture available. If I license the same song by your new license, if you want to go to the nearest square and play it aloud in the guitar, you must make the partiture available also. That is the difference between distribution and public performance, and that is why I think there is an unacceptable additional onus to the licensee in the latter case. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:05:00 -0700, Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm trying to write a special exception to the GNU GPL that would add this without some of the practical problems, and possibly with DFSG and OSI compliance. I'm not entirely clear on to what extent point 4 (Integrity of The Author's Source Code) applies. Clearly, the AGPL creates an invariant section like the GFDL, which doesn't work. My proposed change works more like clause 2(c) of the GNU GPL. There's no exact code that needs to be kept, but a certain functionality does. I don't think this contradicts anything in the DFSG, but I'm no expert, and would like your opinions. I think I need to post my updated version, since it's had some minor changes, plus an added section on temporary outages that I felt was necessary (though it may just open up a new can of worms). This would be an added clause 2(d) to the GNU GPL (forming a modified license which is not, obviously, the GNU GPL) If your work based on the Program is designed to interact with users through a computer network, your work based on the Program must prominently provide to all users who interact with it through a computer network the opportunity to receive the complete source code for your work based on the Program via that same network and the same protocol. At your preference, or if that protocol lacks the means to send the complete source code to the user, your work based on the Program may instead use the HTTP protocol for this purpose. (Exception: if the Program itself is designed to interact with users through a computer network but does not normally provide this functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide this functionality.) * Your work based on the Program does not need to functionally reproduce its own source code to fulfill this requirement. It may instead send a prefabricated archive of the source code, if you ensure that the program in the prefabricated archive is the same as the program that will be interacted with through a computer network. * You may optionally exclude in this transmission or archive any files which serve only the purpose of configuring the Program, and contain no program logic, so long as their complete function is documented in the other files. * You are not in violation of this license if a temporary (lasting less than 24 hours), unpredictable (does not happen on a regular basis or unusually often) situation beyond your control causes users who interact with your copy of the Program or your copy of a work based on the Program through a computer network to be unable to receive the complete source code. If the situation lasts for more than 24 hours, you must either disable interaction with the Program through the affected computer network or by some means restore source code transmission as described above. -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Before going too far down this road, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html for some fundamental questions about where to draw the line on this requirement. Unless you're willing to say all changes must be published, even if never released, it's gonna be tough to find a free way to require that any publication in the absence of distribution can be required. On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote: Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly incompatible with the DFSG Just to be clear: I don't think that the AGPL's incompatibility with the freedom level guaranteed by the DFSG is an implementation issue. It intenionally restricts my rights as a recipient/user/modifier more than something which claims to be free should do. It's not an accident or problem with the wording, it's the pure reason the author didn't use the GPL in the first place. I've been trying to find an alternative that would still protect source-code redistribution on line. I'm pretty sure you mean something other than protect source-code redistribution. force redistribution of modified source is closer. trying to write a special exception to the GNU GPL that would add this without some of the practical problems, I'm afraid your task is impossible, as the problems are not practical. They're due to the direct contradiction of what free software means. If your work based on the Program is designed to interact with users through a computer network designed to is an interesting question. What if it's not designed that way, but I make it do so via hackery or whatnot? Also, users may give you trouble. I write a lot of software that doesn't interact with users, but does interact with client programs that interact with hardware that interacts with users. Am I a user of software in my ISP's routers? Am I a user of their accounting system? How about if it emails me statements? your work based on the Program must prominently provide to all users who interact with it through a computer network the opportunity to receive the complete source code for your work based on the Program via that same network and the same protocol. Unworkable, but you give an out in the next section, so this clause will never be used. At your preference, or if that protocol lacks the means to send the complete source code to the user, your work based on the Program may instead use the HTTP protocol for this purpose. Still unworkable. I want to use the code for some embedded use (say a bluetooth server in a mobile phone). There's no room to implement an HTTP server in addition. There's also no reason. Even if there were, fine: I use HTTP to make the source available, but my firewall doesn't let that through. The very fundamental problem you're facing is that you want to put a behavior restriction on the licensee (you must make source available in a reasonable way), but it cannot be done except as serious restrictions on the use of the software. (Exception: if the Program itself is designed to interact with users through a computer network but does not normally provide this functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide this functionality.) Can I modify the program so that my version is not designed to interact with users through a computer network? Can someone else then use the above exception to modify my version under the pure GPL? -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
I've trimmed a bunch of stuff, trying to leave only the real sticking points. Basically, I believe the task requires restriction of use, not just distribution, and Debian should never accept it, so you may just want to ignore me if you think use restrictions are allowed. Some things your license should clarify if you think this is necessary: 1) What is a user? Your response to the Joe's Typesetting mail is different from what many would assume you meant, and who knows what a court would decide you meant? 2) What restrictions you place on recipients, as opposed to modifiers of code. Say I modify and distribute code in accordance with your requirements, and I sell it to someone who runs it in a datacenter such that only the functional aspects are avaialble, and my mini-http server is blocked? I've followed the license, but don't run a service. They've followed the license (they haven't changed the software, so haven't broken any rules about what it must do), but don't make source available. 3) Spend far more time on use cases and when source distribution is or is not required, rather than trying to come up with technical measures that are incomplete and probably obsolescent. A few more line-by-line questions are below, but they're more comments than questions, and perhaps not productive to pursue further. On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote: The term Free Software is open to interpretation, the DFSG is not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't Free. True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest thing I can find to my personal definition of freedom. After all, according to www.gnu.org , the Affero General Public License is Free Software, and I should think that history would give them precedence in making such a decision. Well, no. debian-legal is the place that Debian discusses their definition. Nobody has precedence in defining our terms. If FSF acceptance is your goal, can you not just use the Affero license? In response to Unworkable, but you give an out in the next section, so this clause will never be used. How is this unworkable? Certainly many, even most, protocols this would apply to have this support. I mean that it's a requirement that is obviously non-free as there are many applications for which it would be impossible. It cannot be a requirement of free software. In your example, it's not required, so it's not worth spending much time on. In response to Still unworkable. I want to use the code for some embedded use ... How is this unworkable? To support the HTTP protocol to the degree of sending source code does not require a full HTTP sever per se. Hell, you could just receive input and ignore it until a blank line, then send Content-type: application/octet-stream other headers data So if my code has such a thing, but no TCP/IP support so no way to actually connect to it, this is allowed? Oh, and do bugs in my http implementation violate the license? In response to Can someone else then use the above exception to modify my version under the pure GPL? Of course not. Nobody ever said that it defaulted to the GNU GPL if your modified version was non-networked. This clause is still part of the license, it just doesn't apply to you. When you redistribute it to the next person, if they make it web-based, they will have to make the source available again. Then I'm confused what the provision (Exception: if the Program itself is designed to interact with users through a computer network but does not normally provide this functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide this functionality.) means. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
** Mark Rafn :: On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote: The term Free Software is open to interpretation, the DFSG is not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't Free. True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest thing I can find to my personal definition of freedom. AOLMe too/AOL. And the process of discovering what is and what is not DFSG-free is another thing that attracts me to Debian. After all, according to www.gnu.org , the Affero General Public License is Free Software, and I should think that history would give them precedence in making such a decision. Well, no. debian-legal is the place that Debian discusses their definition. Nobody has precedence in defining our terms. Actually, the ftp-masters and other constituted Debian authorities have precedence, and debian-legal is only their consulting body. But the process and the discussions on d-l are a beautifully democratic part of this process, and it's so good that actually the ftpmasters often (always?) follow the d-l consensus. If FSF acceptance is your goal, can you not just use the Affero license? In response to Unworkable, but you give an out in the next section, so this clause will never be used. How is this unworkable? Certainly many, even most, protocols this would apply to have this support. I mean that it's a requirement that is obviously non-free as there are many applications for which it would be impossible. It cannot be a requirement of free software. In your example, it's not required, so it's not worth spending much time on. It would constitute unacceptable restrictions on the production of derivative works, possibly combined with discrimination agains fields of endeavour. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 10:19 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote: In response to Still unworkable. I want to use the code for some embedded use ... How is this unworkable? To support the HTTP protocol to the degree of sending source code does not require a full HTTP sever per se. Hell, you could just receive input and ignore it until a blank line, then send Content-type: application/octet-stream other headers data and make a suitable HTTP server in about 25 lines of code. Any device with networking capability could support such a simplNobody said it needed to support sending any other files, etc. I submit that there are embedded environments that will, despite your helpful 25 line (assembly? C? Java?) HTTP server, not have the capacity to include it. But let's say that your 25-line HTTP server, with a few tweaks, can be made to fit in absolutely every net-connected embedded device in existence. Now where do you put the source archive the HTTP server is supposed to serve? You could, I suppose, mandate to the poor developer that he has to add sufficient flash memory to the device to hold the source. But now we're talking about using the law to mandate design decisions against the developer's wishes. I don't know what definition of free gives you the right to tell developers how much memory their devices must, by law, have; none of them I have heard does so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:04:27 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 10:19 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote: In response to Still unworkable. I want to use the code for some embedded use ... How is this unworkable? To support the HTTP protocol to the degree of sending source code does not require a full HTTP sever per se. Hell, you could just receive input and ignore it until a blank line, then send Content-type: application/octet-stream other headers data and make a suitable HTTP server in about 25 lines of code. Any device with networking capability could support such a simplNobody said it needed to support sending any other files, etc. I submit that there are embedded environments that will, despite your helpful 25 line (assembly? C? Java?) HTTP server, not have the capacity to include it. But let's say that your 25-line HTTP server, with a few tweaks, can be made to fit in absolutely every net-connected embedded device in existence. Now where do you put the source archive the HTTP server is supposed to serve? You could, I suppose, mandate to the poor developer that he has to add sufficient flash memory to the device to hold the source. But now we're talking about using the law to mandate design decisions against the developer's wishes. I don't know what definition of free gives you the right to tell developers how much memory their devices must, by law, have; none of them I have heard does so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] So let me ask this (I also put this somewhere else, but it's lost to the thread now ;) ) If the alternatives provided by clause 3 of the GNU GPL were also options, would that be an improvement? That is, if, instead of providing source within the page itself, an offer to provide source was given, would that work? I suppose the issue here is that you certainly couldn't give a physical, printed, written offer to every one who used a web server, but then, it may be reasonable to put source is available on request to ... in the output. There's another problem posed by that, though ... if somebody modified the version, and forgot to change that line ... disaster. - Gregor Richards -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Mark Rafn wrote: I'd like to encourage you to think less along the lines it's currently a web server, so the license should cater to that case and more like people should be able to make things out of this that I haven't thought of, using methodologies yet undreamt. This can't happen if you're prescribing things like network protocols, output text, or specific behaviors. If I can't turn it into a random-number service that runs on my phone over some crazy bluetooth RPC mechanism, it ain't free. I've been considering this, and have written a completely different clause, with no mention of computer networks, HTTP, or anything such. It might, however, be more difficult to enforce. I tried to write it in such a way that giving somebody SSH access to your computer does not necessitate providing source for all of your programs under this license ... that was the hardest part, and makes it read a bit kludgely. I doubt that it is compliant with the Dissident Problem by your opinions ( plural your), but I think that it's well within line of all of the other requirements, and as an added bonus isn't tied to any particular technology. This would not be 2(d), but a new clause between 3 and 4. If you provide to a person or persons a means of accessing an interactive interface to the Program which does not include access to the source code, object code or executable, you must also provide to that person or those persons (henceforth called Indirect Users) access to the complete source code of the Program in one of the following ways: a) Cause the Program to provide its source code in said interactive interface upon the request of an Indirect User; or, b) Make a means of immediate retrieval of the Program's source code easily visible to all Indirect Users; or, c) Provide a written offer, easily visible to all Indirect Users and valid for at least three years, to give to any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange. Thoughts? - Gregor Richards PS: While it would be great for me if I could find some way to get a license with some provision like this considered DFSG free (nothing is impossible! ;) ), I would also like your opinions on whether you think that this would cause any undue harm besides non-DFSG-compliance (unnecessary trouble for innocent users, etc) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:36:50 -0700, Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark Rafn wrote: I'd like to encourage you to think less along the lines it's currently a web server, so the license should cater to that case and more like people should be able to make things out of this that I haven't thought of, using methodologies yet undreamt. This can't happen if you're prescribing things like network protocols, output text, or specific behaviors. If I can't turn it into a random-number service that runs on my phone over some crazy bluetooth RPC mechanism, it ain't free. I've been considering this, and have written a completely different clause, with no mention of computer networks, HTTP, or anything such. It might, however, be more difficult to enforce. I tried to write it in such a way that giving somebody SSH access to your computer does not necessitate providing source for all of your programs under this license ... that was the hardest part, and makes it read a bit kludgely. I doubt that it is compliant with the Dissident Problem by your opinions ( plural your), but I think that it's well within line of all of the other requirements, and as an added bonus isn't tied to any particular technology. This would not be 2(d), but a new clause between 3 and 4. If you provide to a person or persons a means of accessing an interactive interface to the Program which does not include access to the source code, object code or executable, you must also provide to that person or those persons (henceforth called Indirect Users) access to the complete source code of the Program in one of the following ways: a) Cause the Program to provide its source code in said interactive interface upon the request of an Indirect User; or, b) Make a means of immediate retrieval of the Program's source code easily visible to all Indirect Users; or, c) Provide a written offer, easily visible to all Indirect Users and valid for at least three years, to give to any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange. Thoughts? - Gregor Richards PS: While it would be great for me if I could find some way to get a license with some provision like this considered DFSG free (nothing is impossible! ;) ), I would also like your opinions on whether you think that this would cause any undue harm besides non-DFSG-compliance (unnecessary trouble for innocent users, etc) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Damn ... I just posted the email address that I was hoping not to get posted on line. That sender is me, I'm that sender, and damn it, there is now going to be a link to my email address for all spam bots to read _ /me slaps himself in the head. - Gregor Richards -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm trying to write a special exception to the GNU GPL that would add this without some of the practical problems, and possibly with DFSG and OSI compliance. I'm not entirely clear on to what extent point 4 (Integrity of The Author's Source Code) applies. Clearly, the AGPL creates an invariant section like the GFDL, which doesn't work. My proposed change works more like clause 2(c) of the GNU GPL. There's no exact code that needs to be kept, but a certain functionality does. I don't think this contradicts anything in the DFSG, but I'm no expert, and would like your opinions. Here's my proposition so far: As an exception to the GNU General Public License, any user who wishes to distribute modified copies of program (the Program) is also required to abide by this additional rule: If your work based on the Program is designed to interact with users through a computer network, your work based on the Program must prominently provide to all users who interact with it through a computer network the opportunity to receive the complete source code for your work based on the Program via that same network and the same protocol. At your preference, or if that protocol lacks the means to send the complete source code to the user, your work based on the Program may instead use the HTTP protocol for this purpose. (Exception: if the Program itself is designed to interact with users through a computer network but does not normally provide this functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide this functionality.) * Your work based on the Program does not need to functionally reproduce its own source code to fulfill this requirement. It may instead send a prefabricated archive of the source code, if you insure that the program in the prefabricated archive is the same as the program that will be interacted with through a computer network. * You may optionally exclude in this transmission or archive any files which serve only the purpose of configuring the Program, and contain no program logic, so long as their complete function is documented in the other files. -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 19:05 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:
Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly
incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that
would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm
trying to write a special exception to the GNU GPL that would add this
without some of the practical problems, and possibly with DFSG and OSI
compliance. I'm not entirely clear on to what extent point 4 (Integrity
of The Author's Source Code) applies. Clearly, the AGPL creates an
invariant section like the GFDL, which doesn't work. My proposed
change works more like clause 2(c) of the GNU GPL. There's no exact
code that needs to be kept, but a certain functionality does. I don't
think this contradicts anything in the DFSG, but I'm no expert, and
would like your opinions.
Here's my proposition so far:
As an exception to the GNU General Public License, any user who wishes
to distribute modified copies of program (the Program) is also
required to abide by this additional rule:
This is an additional restriction, forbidden by section 6. Section 6
states, in part:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein.
This results in having an inconsistent license, and is consequently not
distributable at all, except by the copyright holder.
Also, the word insure should be ensure, on the fourth line of the
first starred item. The word insure means to secure against loss.
The word ensure means to make sure or to be certain.
As a side note, what you are trying to do is not compliant with the
DFSG. We have rejected software that requires that people send copies
or otherwise make copies available[0] as compatible with the DFSG.
Whether it is compliant with the OSI is not a discussion for this list.
[0] See http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}DATA;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H[EMAIL PROTECTED];!UF%OG-U(#QUF%OG-U0=D:75MUC8VUL=G)U;6LN
MFUL+F=Y/@H)2QA8F-D969G:EJ:VQM;F]P7)S='5V=WAYBQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1YF%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:52:55 +, Brian M. Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 19:05 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:
Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly
incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that
would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm
trying to write a special exception to the GNU GPL that would add this
without some of the practical problems, and possibly with DFSG and OSI
compliance. I'm not entirely clear on to what extent point 4 (Integrity
of The Author's Source Code) applies. Clearly, the AGPL creates an
invariant section like the GFDL, which doesn't work. My proposed
change works more like clause 2(c) of the GNU GPL. There's no exact
code that needs to be kept, but a certain functionality does. I don't
think this contradicts anything in the DFSG, but I'm no expert, and
would like your opinions.
Here's my proposition so far:
As an exception to the GNU General Public License, any user who wishes
to distribute modified copies of program (the Program) is also
required to abide by this additional rule:
This is an additional restriction, forbidden by section 6. Section 6
states, in part:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein.
This results in having an inconsistent license, and is consequently not
distributable at all, except by the copyright holder.
Also, the word insure should be ensure, on the fourth line of the
first starred item. The word insure means to secure against loss.
The word ensure means to make sure or to be certain.
As a side note, what you are trying to do is not compliant with the
DFSG. We have rejected software that requires that people send copies
or otherwise make copies available[0] as compatible with the DFSG.
Whether it is compliant with the OSI is not a discussion for this list.
[0] See http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}DATA;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H[EMAIL PROTECTED];!UF%OG-U(#QUF%OG-U0=D:75MUC8VUL=G)U;6LN
MFUL+F=Y/@H)2QA8F-D969G:EJ:VQM;F]P7)S='5V=WAYBQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1YF%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
In response section 6:
(So that I can reference, the full section:)
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would
include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it.
Perhaps a rephrase as an additional term or something that made it
obvious that this was a part of the license of the program and hence
is not an additional restriction when redistributed? I of course
can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL without FSF's
permission, so is there any way that a term could be added at all?
In response to {i,e}nsure:
Of course you are correct, my current draft now has this changed.
In response to the dissident problem:
I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident
has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available
through some computer network. If said dissident made it available on a
public computer network, they have already incriminated themselves - if
said dissident made it available on a private computer network, the
distribution of source does not need to extend beyond that network. If
said dissident simply made changes and had it on no computer network,
(s)he could distribute it as described in that wiki page. It seems to
me that by committing to send source code via the same interface, users
are not committing to any more than they already have by having the
program on that interface. Perhaps I don't understand the application
of this rule?
- Gregor Richards
--
Gregor Richards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
love email again
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
