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."
"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.
compatible with GPLv3 ? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Next-gen GPL license (Score:1, Interesting)
?GPL : refer to your GPL-based/derived software X as GPL/X.
AGPL : release changes if you do not publish AGPL-derived code.
nxGPL: release changes if you publish non GPL-derived code.
Re:really? (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'm taking advantage of a service my webhost provides and through that offering some functionality to users who visit my site do I need to obtain the source for that service from my webhost and then pass it along to the user (assuming it's covered by the APL of course)?
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?
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 instead of modifying MySQL and making a downloadable application that runs on the user's computer, I make a web application. I still use MySQL on my server, and I use my code for the actual web application, and this combined essentially forms a derived work of MySQL, and if I were to distribute this application, I would also have to give out the source-code for my web app for free. But I'm not distributing it, I'm only making it available through my website, and because GPL only kicks in during distribution, I'm free to use as much GPL software as I possibly want for my web application without ever releasing any source code.
This is what this AGPL wants to stop. If MySQL was distributed under it, then everyone who built a web app using MySQL, would also have to give away the source code for their web app, if they make it available to users.
Needless to say, this is not going to be very popular with companies. I can't imagine Google or Facebook or MySpace or similar websites ever wanting to give away their source-code, since it contains all the trade secrets, everything that gives them the edge over the competition. I work for a small company and we have our own web application that is backed by some GPL software, but we would never want to give away the code we made ourselves, that would be suicide for us as a company.
This is pointless (Score:2, Interesting)
This illustrates nicely that the purpose of the FSF is not to ensure users retain important capabilities, but to ensure that there is no copyright in any software work.
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?
Re:Depends a bit on what you do (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 code for security issues or even intentional malice on the part of the author etc.
With web services we are talking about applications that do not run on the user's machine. Thus the server-side code doesn't really do them any good anyway. Any code that does execute locally (markup and client side scripts etc.) is available to them.
So this is pandering exclusively to the original authors who demand any modifications that you make to their code, since it in no way benefits their users. I realize that is a part of the original GPL, but I'm not sure it is in it's spirit. The original GPL says that if you DISTRIBUTE your modifications that you must also provide the code. To me that says "the users of MY software deserve to have the code available to them so that they have a complete 'product' that they can do whatever they want with. So if you distribute a modified version then the users also need to have the code to your modifications otherwise you do not have permission to distribute a modified version of my software".
The AGPL on the other hand is saying that "even though the code does absolutely no good to your users, even though you are offering a service and not an application you must still release any modified versions of this code because I gave you the original code and I want your modifications back".
I am not saying that it is good or bad. I am not even sure how I feel about it. I'm just not certain that it's in the spirit of the original GPL. I'm sure others will disagree.
Re:Is this an EULA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Post-mortem:
SmallNonprofitOrganization discovers bandwidth costs have soared due to extra bandwidth required to support downloading of modified code. SmallNonprofitOrganization decides it's not worth the hassle, ditches ReallyCoolWebTool for a more "user-friendly" closed source license. F/OSS loses yet another potential convert.
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 interpretations strengthen the dead grasp of Microsoft and other companies that want to use software patents, interface copyrights, and onerous and offensive non-modification clauses to keep users from modifying their own software. One day, I can see the LPF in court, attacking some onerous license, and their opposite number pointing out that the same clauses were right there in licenses drawn up by the same lawyers working for the FSF.
Don't fear one evil so much that you end up serving others just as great. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, and anger leads to suffering.
Re:and now why this won't work.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The GPLv3 just scares off corporations.