Slashdot Log In
FSF Releases AGPL License For Web Services
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 20, 2007 05:33 AM
from the when-view-source-isn't-enough dept.
from the when-view-source-isn't-enough dept.
mako writes "The Free Software Foundation has released the Affero General Public license version 3. The license is essentially the GPLv3 with an added clause that requires that source code be distributed to users that interact with the application over a network. The license effectively extends copyright to Web applications. The new AGPL will have important effects for companies that, under the GPL, have no obligation to distribute changes to users on the Web. This release adds the license to the stable of official FSF licenses and is compatible with the GPLv3."
Related Stories
Submission: FSF Releases New License for Web Services by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Mobile: FSF's "Defective By Design" Targets Apple Genius Bars 838 comments
mjasay writes "At OSCON this year, MySQL's Brian Aker made this bold statement: 'Microsoft is irrelevant ... We're more worried about Apple.' The Free Software Foundation appears to have caught the hint, and has turned its attention to all-things-Apple with a 'denial of service' attack on the Apple Genius Bars. The idea is to completely book all Genius Bars and then ask the 'geniuses,' over and over again, a few questions about Apple's proprietary ways (while, apparently, real customers with support issues are left to flounder). Lost in this anti-Apple fervor, however, is the Free Software Foundation's complete and conscious failure to protect the web. Richard Stallman has long felt that software that doesn't sit on his desktop doesn't affect his freedom, but isn't the opposite true? Why is the FSF focused on Apple when the bigger concern should be Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and other web players, a point made by Tim O'Reilly recently at OSCON?" Defective by Design is just one of many FSF projects, remember; it hardly seems fair to say that the FSF has been ignoring the implications of software as a service.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
"The license extends copyright to Web apps" (Score:5, Interesting)
The owner of the copyright might extend terms in his license, not the other way round.
Re:"The license extends copyright to Web apps" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:"The license extends copyright to Web apps" (Score:4, Funny)
So a group like the FSF will have to come along and rough up copyright a little bit. Only if copyright is legally forced to deal with the mess that are web apps will it bother to do so. Even then, I'm thinking it'll resist somewhat, since I'm pretty sure it doesn't want to have to associate with such pathetic programming.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if they use it. No-one's under an obligation to use a new version of a licence, and if they don't like the terms, they may steer clear of it to start with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed for you. This version of the GPL goes above and beyond what the GPL has traditionally concerned itself with, distribution.
So I'm wondering, do you have to provide the source code only if the user can directly use the program through a web service or does it account for indirect access? If I
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the need for this license. I've been writing PHP code for years and this has never been a problem. When I worked for GreedyBastardCompany I was looking for a free captcha to use. If it was licensed under the AGPL I would have looked for something else more work safe. Luck had it that it was licen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This license has been needed for a long time. Authors of open source web applications could not use the GPL or almost any other open source license, which only grants access to modified source code if the modder distributes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then SmallNonprofitOrganization uses any of the hundreds of services out there to help them, like:
...and so on. Barring that, they just ask a member of the FLOSS community to host it for them, gratis, in exchange for some mention on their website or other non-financial gratification.
Doubt (Score:2)
What does this mean now? If I release a web service under AGPL, do I have to distribute the changes or not?
Sorry, am not a native English speaker. IANAL too.
Depends a bit on what you do (Score:5, Informative)
I write a web based application, say forum software, and publish that under the regular GPL.
That means you can take the source code for my software and modify it and use it. BUT because you never distribute that modified code (you only run it on your own server) you don't have to honor the GPL and disclose your modifications.
This is extremely common lots of websites use GPL software but never contribute back their own changes.
IF I write my forum software under the AGPL and you modify it for your own use, you now have to distribute those changes. Roughly the same as if you had modified a client program.
HOWEVER your question is slightly odd, if you release a web service under AGPL then you are the original author. As the original author (as long as no others contribute code to you) you can do what you please. Just because version 1 of your software was under X license doesn't mean version 2 has to be.
What I think you meant to ask was "If I build a webservice with software that is licensed under the AGPL, do I have to distribute changes I make to that software".
The answer to that is YES.
Although I presume they will allow you to modify the config file and keep it private, bit of a security nightmare if you have to distribute the bit that contains your passwords ^_^
Basically this is the GPL for software where the end-user only gets the end-result, not the actuall program.
It is an intresting idea, the GPL works because it en-forces users to be contributors as well. There is a reason MS and Apple love BSD and IBM loves the GPL. Why should software like forum software be different?
As a web developer I like the idea. When I release a web-app and you modify it, you now have to give that code back. Seems only fair, why should web-apps be different?
If you don't like the idea, well then don't use AGPL licensed software. Write your own or use software under a different license.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks a bunch for the explanation
May your AGPL'ed code always be updated by your end users
Re: (Score:2)
It forces nothing to the user. The restriction is only upon distribution: if you distribute the software, modified or not, you must make the source code available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A user never had to honor the GPL and the GPL never required a User to give changes or anything back.
Something that is disturbing here, if your company uses AGPLed software and components inside the company, how does the give out source apply? The people working there are agents of the sam
Re:Depends a bit on what you do (Score:5, Informative)
What I think you meant to ask was "If I build a webservice with software that is licensed under the AGPL, do I have to distribute changes I make to that software".
The answer to that is YES.
This license is targeted pretty much at developers like myself; I have a project called phpDiplomacy [phpdiplomacy.net], and it's currently licensed under BSD.
Using the GPL seemed pointless, because I'm not worried about people selling the code. I am only concerned about someone taking the code, modifying it, running it on their server and making money off it, but not releasing the changes. Because it's a server-side app they wouldn't have to distribute the source to make money off it, so they have no reason to distribute changes.
So for me having a license was only about making sure people couldn't take the code and claim they wrote it, and that's pretty much all BSD does.
I'll probably move from BSD to AGPL now, once I've read it over thoroughly (and hopefully once it becomes OSS approved), and I can definitely remove the BSD license (or any other license) from my own software. I can add and remove licenses as I please, as the copyright holder.
The only restriction on me is that if someone already has a BSD licensed copy now I can't say "Your copy is now AGPL licensed", I can only license future releases differently.
(IANAL YMMV)
Parent
Re:Depends a bit on what you do (Score:4, Interesting)
Or this is LGLP-like license, where you can freely use LGPL libraries and keep custom code private?
Can someone explain if this is going to happen?
Parent
and now why this won't work.. (Score:3, Insightful)
and then you see that I have done all this awesome stuff with your AGPL code and demand the changes, could I just give you..
Since you have to redistribute changes not your own files it doesn't seem like this license would be much use, just like how GPL2 isn't much use stopping DRM'd linux kernels.
If however I am wrong and you have to redistribute mycode.php I can see this being a real nigh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever there is a certain level of success in the free software/GPL front, they pull some stunt and take it backwards. It seems that their goal is more to perpetuate their notoriety then to help mom and pop shops. Just look at some of their actions recently, they attacked novell for something th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However I am not sure how I feel about this. Simply because with GPL code you're talking about something that someone is going to be running on their own machine and for their own purposes. If there is a problem with a locally executing program the user deserves to be able to fix it themselves. There is also trust issues that OSS goes a ways towards fixing. With the source code available you can audit the cod
Might be usefull for companies too... (Score:5, Interesting)
This might be useful for companies too. We have in example been thinking about releasing our software in open source to expand the usage of our software and to gain more knowledge in the markets about us. However as we are business and a rather small one, releasing the software in example in GPL would be more or less commercial suicide, as our software is purely web based, some bigger service company could just take it and give nothing back...
I really have to read more about AGPL. I think that by combining AGPL + MPL + strong attribution clauses, for us and maybe to many more small developers it could come more lucrative to open source our software, because we still would get changes back, we would have more freedom and we would get attribution for our work. Definitely very good for FSF to publish this license. I really think that in time as there comes more licenses that cover different things, it will come more and more easier and secure to publish software and other works in open source.
Ug (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's suppose you and some friends want to hack on something. A bit of private development. So you set up a normal webserver, but stick password control on it, so only 6 of you have access.
Well, the AGPL covers that, because it covers anything that is remotely accessible over a network.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just bizarrely wrong. By your logic, Coca Cola's formula isn't really a trade secret because regular people can buy it. I'll happily give our customers the output of our internal algorithms, but my boss wouldn't be too keen on giving them the algorithms themselves considering they're how we stay in business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be overlooking the fact that your so called internal algorithms are actually derivative works.
Umm, no, they're not. I'm not talking about taking a CMS and adding a new module to it. I'm talking about using an application server to display the output of a 20-year-old internally-developed application we've written. It's no more a derived work than if running it as a GUI exported over Citrix would make it a derived work of Citrix.
Fortunately, Zope is licensed under the GPL-compatible ZPL so we don't have to deal with any of this anti-Free Software stupidity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
will it hold any water? (Score:2)
How can the AGPL work in practice?
Swell (Score:2)
In an attempt to make life simple for simple folk, I've spent 12 years explaining that there are three kinds of free software:
Public domain software - no copyright, no nothing. Rare and not very useful, but it does exist. Well, it did exist until universities wised up to what some o
AGPL and projects like phpBB (Score:3, Informative)
Say you've got forum software, like phpBB. Lots of people put modifications into it and lots of people release modifications. There are also lots of people who hack in large custom mods and gain from the phpBB base while not releasing anything because it is GPL. If phpBB was AGPLed then major changes like that would have to be released and so anyone modifying, for example, a forum script to turn it into a CMS would have to release their modification. That would then stop people having to re-implement the same CMS functionality just because no-one wanted to release it.
Okay, so it's not necessarily going to be a winner in all cases, and it may dissuade some people from using a script, but I can see where it might be useful.
Is this an EULA? (Score:4, Interesting)
The trouble with this is that the people purportedly bound by the license are users, not distributors. The GPL works because the people in question are distributing copies and thus need a license. People installing software on a server are not.
In the USA, you have the legal right to make copies of software for the purpose of using it. Copying it to your server is not copyright infringement. Running it is not copyright infringement. You don't need a license. So what compels AGPL users to accept this license and be bound by its terms? Where is the consideration?
AGPL is not enforceable (Re:Is this an EULA?) (Score:4, Informative)
AGPL is not enforceable in the United States
Disclaimer: IANAL
I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.
As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:
1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor
Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.
The AGPL is not an EULA.
Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."
The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.
However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf [copyright.gov])
This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf [findlaw.com] Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp [techlawjournal.com]
Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.
Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf [thelen.com] The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.
So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The path to the dark side... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the FSF extended their definition of derived work to include programs that were compatible with GPLed code but didn't actually contain any GPLed code, bringing the horrors of interface copyrights into the FSF's fold.
Now, they're invoking the madness that modifying but not redistributing software is against the license, which is a tool used to lock end-users in by denying them the right to modify commercial software.
These kinds of clauses and interpr
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If all its users are to have the freedom to share and change the software, then that would include users who are accessing it over a web service. So this is a logical step to ensure freedom for software users.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
No, no, no, no, no....
We're not talking about work created using an application, we're still talking about derivations of an app.
It's just that this app is a web-thingy app, and will never be "distributed" to users, but will just provide some kind of service to them.
So that according to the GPL, devs are not obliged to release modifications they made to the code, and can get away with the "free beer" part without caring much about the "free speech" one.
As always, if this license doesn't suit your nee
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about that one, but even if it were true...
No, it's nothing like that!
What this licence is saying - as is quite clear in TFA - is that if I host an AGPL application, and you log in to my server and use it, I have to provide yo
No you troll (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy is trolling, he purposefully misreads the license and tries to introduce the old troll that GPL software means that what is produced with that software must be GPL'ed as well. This is offcourse complete and utter nonsense, but it is a regular troll that usually gets modded down pretty quickly.
He just tries a new angle with the AGPL. To make it clear for those who don't understand the license. Slashdot is run on custom code, lets say that it is released under the GPL, you can now take that code, install it on your own server (scream a bit as you release what you have just done) and run your own site with it (although it never will be quite like slashdot unless you hire a finite number of monkeys as your editors). So far so good. Now you modify this code. To hide your shame you don't actually distribute the code in question, just run it on your own server. A GPL license in this case would NOT force you to release these modifications, the GPL only triggers when you distribute the code/program to others. Google for instance uses a modified GPL code, but because they don't distribute are under no obligation to distribute the modified code (they do distribute some of it although they don't have too).
IF however the slash code was released under the AGPL you would be forced to distribute your modifications.
BUT at no point would the END result of the code/program fall under any license other then that which you choose. In this case, the HTML pages created would OFFCOURSE not fall under the AGPL or GPL or ANY license unless you choose one yourselve. (does machine created content fall under basic copyright?)
This is very clear from the license text and only a deliberate misreading by someone wishing to troll could result in any other explenation.
The GPL/AGPL are about the program/code, NOT about the results of the program/code. Anyone who tries to claim something else is an idiot.
It says a lot about slashdot moderation that this tired old troll was modded up. He tries to disguise himself by saying that he is happy to be corrected but before without trying to link Stallman to communism (the gpl is far closer to the true idea of a free market) and without having spouted a lot of outright crap first.
Now if you excuse me, I have to use windows for an hour as punishement for feeding the troll.
Parent
No, no, no. (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL, and all other licenses based in copyrights, only kick in when you perform the actual copying. Say, for example, that you modify MySQL somehow. If you acquired MySQL under the GPL, and you wish to DISTRIBUTE this modified version, you have to abide by the GPL, and give out the source-code for your modifications alongside. This is the only way the GPL can kick in currently, when someone wishes to distribute modifications of GPL software.
But say that inst
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL is about enforcing give and take in the "free software" community, you get to use and modify the communities code on condition that when you release an improved version your users get the source to those modifications under the GPL (and hence can feed the code back to the community if they wish which if there is more than a handfull of them one of them probablly will).
The problem has been that companies are making improvements to
Re: (Score:2)
Users are those that use the software to produce their own work. If the license doesn't apply to them, but only to those that make changes to the program, it shouldn't refer to the developers as "users" but "authors", "contributors", or "producers of derivative work".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law allows the copyright holder control over public performance of their work.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, should be fairly easy to comply for Javascript
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)