FSF Releases AGPL License For Web Services 276
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."
Re:"The license extends copyright to Web apps" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:compatible with GPLv3 ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ugh - Be GLAD (Score:1, Informative)
this remains true
> Are you saying that if I, say, use an AGPL-licensed currency converting web service on my ticket reservation site, I must release the WHOLE site under the AGPL?
no. have a read of the license and you will find it's only the one application. The new license is actually almost exactly identical to the GPLv3
>The difference between protecting modifications of the software, and forcing WORK done with the software to be released under the GPL is HUGE.
You are right and the FSF agrees. FSF licenses make it impossible to force work done with the software and not embedding parts of thw software to be controlled.
> I'd be very glad if it was just me misunderstanding the license,
Be glad
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.
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.
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)
Re:Ug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:will it hold any water? (Score:1, Informative)
How can the AGPL work in practice?
Tbe AGPL is not about output, it's about modification.
The difference between the GPL and AGPL is that the GPL only cares about distribution. You can modify as much as you want, as long as you don't distribute, there is not limit. The AGPL expands the "distribution" part to running it on a web server, where people don't download the program, they only use it, thus it is technically not distributed. With the AGPL you still have to give them the source, including modifications.
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.
Re:Ugh (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 free software but getting arround the requirement to release the source to those improvements to thier users by operating on a service model and not giving the code to thier users in any form (either source or binary).
Afaict there is no requirement in the license to release your website data or the source to other apps on your site in the license (though things could get tricky for tightly integrated sites, the license doesn't seem to do a good job of handling them).
Re:really? (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.
Re:Depends a bit on what you do (Score:2, Informative)
So this common Slashdot meme about the GPL does not apply to the AGPL.