RE: Affero GPL. Big loophole?
Where are the teeth? In my reading, the essence of the interesting part of clause 2(d) is must offer an ... opportunity ... to request immediate transmission ... of the complete source code. I find it _extremely_ odd that it does not compel transmission. (Other GPL terms are clear that you must supply source code. This clause is different. Why?) you must supply source code clause is important because it garantees FREE competition from the top to the very bottom The same must be applied to services on servers. The idea should be to allow users to set up the identical services by themselves -- De Bug mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Affero GPL. Big loophole?
En réponse à Forrest J Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Free Software Foundation Announces Support of the Affero General
Public License, the First Copyleft License for Web Services
http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
(NOTE: The FSF suggests comments to them. I CC'ed them, but
I'd prefer discussion in a forum. license-discuss seems
appropriate.)
Please, someone tell me how I am misreading the added clause
2(d).
Where are the teeth? In my reading, the essence of the interesting
part of clause 2(d) is
must offer an ... opportunity ... to request
immediate transmission ... of the complete source code.
I find it _extremely_ odd that it does not compel transmission.
(Other GPL terms are clear that you must supply source code. This
clause is different. Why?)
If compelling the transmission is the goal, why is the license
clause only compelling the offer of opportunity to request?
Is this on purpose? Why create a huge loophole when it could
have been written clearly?
As an exercise, could someone explain why the following response is
_not_ compliant with 2(d)?
int main(int argc,char **argv)
{
printf (We received your request for the complete source
code.\n);
printf (BRAGPL 2(d) does not obligate us to supply it when
responding.\n);
printf (BRHave a nice day!\n);
}
Because as the software is GPLed, you must supply the source code on request.
Now maybe the word immediate is not good in that case.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Affero GPL. Big loophole?
Steve Lhomme wrote in part. Because as the software is GPLed, you must supply the source code on request. Where does clause 2(d) state that? I want to discuss 2(d) specifically. Certainly the other clauses of the GPL will remain in force, but there are circumstances where only Clause 2(d) will apply. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Affero GPL. Badgeware?
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:22:09 -0500 (EST) Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think clause Affero GPL 2(d) provides for the propagation of badgeware, meaning that it obligates propagation of a brand or mark. The important bit is you must not remove that facility. I wouldn't interpret it that way. The facility is defined previously as any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code It does not specify that you cannot modify the facilty...but that you must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work -- Henri Poole - Mobile: 415 810 6804 - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Salus populi suprema est lex. - Cicero How valuable is my contribution? Share your feedback at Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Affero GPL. Big loophole?
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:36:55 +0100 De Bug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where are the teeth? In my reading, the essence of the interesting part of clause 2(d) is must offer an ... opportunity ... to request immediate transmission ... of the complete source code. I find it _extremely_ odd that it does not compel transmission. (Other GPL terms are clear that you must supply source code. This clause is different. Why?) you must supply source code clause is important because it garantees FREE competition from the top to the very bottom The same must be applied to services on servers. The idea should be to allow users to set up the identical services by themselves Thanks for this comment. I have cc'd fsf to review it. -Henri -- Henri Poole - Mobile: 415 810 6804 - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Salus populi suprema est lex. - Cicero How valuable is my contribution? Share your feedback at Affero: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Affero GPL. Badgeware?
Henri Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wouldn't interpret it that way. Were you involved in the creation of the text? Do you speak for Affero? That would be very helpful to know. This license is going to be used by others. (The intent and interpretation that Affero has is important, but not the only one that will matter.) The facility is defined previously as any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code There is no definition of facility. It does not specify that you cannot modify the facilty...but that you must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with I read the text has two separate requirements, separated by and you must not remove that facility and must offer My point is what purpose is served by having the must not remove? If you argue that the second is the necessary requirement, then why have both? According to the text in 2(d), if I completely replace an existing method with my own (maybe I copied a new file over top of an existing one), didn't I remove that facility, which the license prohibits? Have I merely modified it, even though not a single bit of it remains? It bothers me that the clause could be, but is not continue to provide an equivalent facility You seem to argue that was the intent. But if you change it to be that, the text becomes redundant, (since that is what the and must offer clause states.) It is my understanding that one way that courts interpret legal documents is that every clause must provide meaning. It is not safe to argue that clauses should be ignored as redundant when there is a way to interpret them in a way which provides non-redundant meaning. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
