Comments on: Is the AGPL half-empty, or half-full? http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/ A blog for the enterprise open source community Mon, 12 May 2008 07:21:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: osi model http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-217936 osi model Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:06:11 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-217936 [...] GPL-compatible license, and as it turns out, this is one of ...http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8353Is the AGPL half-empty, or half-full? The GNU Affero GPL, released in November 2007 and approved by the osi this month, is being viewed [...] […] GPL-compatible license, and as it turns out, this is one of …http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8353Is the AGPL half-empty, or half-full? The GNU Affero GPL, released in November 2007 and approved by the osi this month, is being viewed […]

]]> By: Tony Lovasco http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216948 Tony Lovasco Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:40:46 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216948 I think the FSF's goals aren't really to force people to "give something back". They're wanting to protect the rights of the users of the code to be able to use, modify, and redistribute it. That's the spirit of the GPL. There's a big difference between forcing someone to "give back" simply for using software, and making them give out the source code and/or their changes whenever they distribute it. That's primarily why I dislike the AGPL: it goes a step beyond just requiring people to distribute the source with the binarys-- it makes them give out the source to anyone using the software over a network. What's odd about this is the requirement only applies to network-access. If you set up a kiosk in your storefront running AGPL software, you don't have to give the code to customers who use it. But if that same customer were to access the same software remotely via a network (such as the internet), all of a sudden you have to give out the source. Free Software is about protecting the rights of those who possess it -- not creating some kind of software society in which everyone is forced to share and help each other. I think the FSF’s goals aren’t really to force people to “give something back”. They’re wanting to protect the rights of the users of the code to be able to use, modify, and redistribute it. That’s the spirit of the GPL. There’s a big difference between forcing someone to “give back” simply for using software, and making them give out the source code and/or their changes whenever they distribute it.

That’s primarily why I dislike the AGPL: it goes a step beyond just requiring people to distribute the source with the binarys– it makes them give out the source to anyone using the software over a network.

What’s odd about this is the requirement only applies to network-access. If you set up a kiosk in your storefront running AGPL software, you don’t have to give the code to customers who use it. But if that same customer were to access the same software remotely via a network (such as the internet), all of a sudden you have to give out the source.

Free Software is about protecting the rights of those who possess it — not creating some kind of software society in which everyone is forced to share and help each other.

]]> By: Amos Batto http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216655 Amos Batto Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:38:39 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216655 The lack of the AGPL's provisions in the GPL v3 is a "loophole" if you view it in light of the FSF's goals. As many of the people at the FSF have pointed out, the goal of the GPL v3 was to promote user's rights and the values of freedom, not to guarantee universal adoption or necessarily promote business profits. The fact that businesses can modify GPL v3 code and used it over a network in a distributed fashion, but don't have to share their code with the rest of the world is a "loophole". It goes against the intent of the GPL, if not it's letter. Google understands that it is violating the spirit of the free software movement by using its software, by not giving anything back. I think that is part of the reason why Google finances the Google Summer of Code to pay students to work on free software projects and the Google Pack to download free software, so that it can improve its image in the free software community. (Maybe some fo the people at Google also have a social conscience as well.) The lack of the AGPL’s provisions in the GPL v3 is a “loophole” if you view it in light of the FSF’s goals. As many of the people at the FSF have pointed out, the goal of the GPL v3 was to promote user’s rights and the values of freedom, not to guarantee universal adoption or necessarily promote business profits. The fact that businesses can modify GPL v3 code and used it over a network in a distributed fashion, but don’t have to share their code with the rest of the world is a “loophole”. It goes against the intent of the GPL, if not it’s letter. Google understands that it is violating the spirit of the free software movement by using its software, by not giving anything back. I think that is part of the reason why Google finances the Google Summer of Code to pay students to work on free software projects and the Google Pack to download free software, so that it can improve its image in the free software community. (Maybe some fo the people at Google also have a social conscience as well.)

]]> By: Jay Lyman http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216462 Jay Lyman Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:48:09 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216462 Thanks for weighing in, GBGames. I agree that the GPL and AGPL both represent valid, solid choices for those considering them, depending on their perspective. As far as the article painting the 'ASP loophole' as it is known as a mistake, I don't actually think that's the case. While many people wanted GPLv3 to address this loophole, or issue you if you prefer, you are correct that it is not error that the license does NOT require sharing of code and modifications for SaaS or 'alternative distribution.' In fact, it is the AGPLv3 that does require this sharing. My post was about how this requirement is being seen as both a burden, and as an opportunity. We will be watching to see which way things go. JL Thanks for weighing in, GBGames. I agree that the GPL and AGPL both represent valid, solid choices for those considering them, depending on their perspective. As far as the article painting the ‘ASP loophole’ as it is known as a mistake, I don’t actually think that’s the case. While many people wanted GPLv3 to address this loophole, or issue you if you prefer, you are correct that it is not error that the license does NOT require sharing of code and modifications for SaaS or ‘alternative distribution.’ In fact, it is the AGPLv3 that does require this sharing. My post was about how this requirement is being seen as both a burden, and as an opportunity. We will be watching to see which way things go.

JL

]]> By: GBGames http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216015 GBGames Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:25:55 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-216015 I think the tone of this article indicates that the GPLv3 is flawed for not "fixing this loophole", as if it is a problem. I don't think that the AGPL is useless, but I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the GPLv3. Unless your intention is to release network software in which use of it requires distribution of source, the GPL is perfectly fine. I can see arguments for both sides, and there are two separate licenses. Win-win. I just think that the GPL was written very carefully, and this supposed "loophole" wasn't an accident. This article sure paints it as such. Toney makes a good point about the problems with posting the source when you make trivial changes every week. Clearly the AGPL won't be for him. I plan on taking advantage of this "loophole" for my own business, so the AGPL won't be for me either. I can see how it would be useful for someone like Linden Labs, for instance, since they are intent on using open standards and open source for virtual worlds. Using the AGPL would guarantee that if anyone improves the source to the infrastructure, the improvements will be available for everyone. I think the tone of this article indicates that the GPLv3 is flawed for not “fixing this loophole”, as if it is a problem. I don’t think that the AGPL is useless, but I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the GPLv3. Unless your intention is to release network software in which use of it requires distribution of source, the GPL is perfectly fine.

I can see arguments for both sides, and there are two separate licenses. Win-win.

I just think that the GPL was written very carefully, and this supposed “loophole” wasn’t an accident. This article sure paints it as such.

Toney makes a good point about the problems with posting the source when you make trivial changes every week. Clearly the AGPL won’t be for him. I plan on taking advantage of this “loophole” for my own business, so the AGPL won’t be for me either. I can see how it would be useful for someone like Linden Labs, for instance, since they are intent on using open standards and open source for virtual worlds. Using the AGPL would guarantee that if anyone improves the source to the infrastructure, the improvements will be available for everyone.

]]> By: Jay Lyman http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215793 Jay Lyman Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:37:00 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215793 Thanks for posting Toney. Obviously, you're another glass-half-empty guy when it comes to AGPL. I think 'worthless' is a stretch, though. Do you think real businesses such as Funambol, Colosa and others would be adopting AGPLv3 for no reason, for nothing? I think the debate and discussion of AGPL is important, and the points raised here deserve consideration, particularly when you talk about placing restrictions on open source. However, there are plenty of people who rightfully argue that GPLv3 has significant limitations -- DRM uses, limited patent rights, etc. GPLv3, like GPLv2, does not require sharing of code that is served or used over a network. For those who want to make sure code and modifications are still shared, not only among users, but more importantly among developers, there is the choice of AGPLv3. JL Thanks for posting Toney. Obviously, you’re another glass-half-empty guy when it comes to AGPL. I think ‘worthless’ is a stretch, though. Do you think real businesses such as Funambol, Colosa and others would be adopting AGPLv3 for no reason, for nothing?

I think the debate and discussion of AGPL is important, and the points raised here deserve consideration, particularly when you talk about placing restrictions on open source. However, there are plenty of people who rightfully argue that GPLv3 has significant limitations — DRM uses, limited patent rights, etc. GPLv3, like GPLv2, does not require sharing of code that is served or used over a network. For those who want to make sure code and modifications are still shared, not only among users, but more importantly among developers, there is the choice of AGPLv3.

JL

]]> By: Tony Lovasco http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215776 Tony Lovasco Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:51:52 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215776 The AGPL is worthless. I'm a huge supporter of GPLv2 and GPLv3, but the idea that allowing someone to access software over a network is the same as distributing it is nonsense. The user never gets a copy of the code, so no distribution happens. So there is no "loophole" to close. I understand that the AGPL is simply another choice that people can use to license their code under, but I see absolutely no benefit in doing so. Since end users of network hosted software (such as a website) never get the code, they couldn't possibly incorporate it into a proprietary program of their own, no matter what license it is released under. As someone who runs several websites that run on Free Software, I can attest that it would be a huge hassle to have to release the full source code for my whole site every time I make a small change to the PHP backend (which happens about one a week). Even though the software I use is GPLv2, I still plan to release most of my changes anyway, but I won't be doing so every time I change one line of code, because that would be a complete waste of time. It's very important that Free Software licenses only place restrictions on distribution of the code, not its use. The AGPL, sadly, restricts the primary use of most web-based software -- using it on the web... The AGPL is worthless. I’m a huge supporter of GPLv2 and GPLv3, but the idea that allowing someone to access software over a network is the same as distributing it is nonsense. The user never gets a copy of the code, so no distribution happens. So there is no “loophole” to close.

I understand that the AGPL is simply another choice that people can use to license their code under, but I see absolutely no benefit in doing so. Since end users of network hosted software (such as a website) never get the code, they couldn’t possibly incorporate it into a proprietary program of their own, no matter what license it is released under.

As someone who runs several websites that run on Free Software, I can attest that it would be a huge hassle to have to release the full source code for my whole site every time I make a small change to the PHP backend (which happens about one a week). Even though the software I use is GPLv2, I still plan to release most of my changes anyway, but I won’t be doing so every time I change one line of code, because that would be a complete waste of time.

It’s very important that Free Software licenses only place restrictions on distribution of the code, not its use. The AGPL, sadly, restricts the primary use of most web-based software — using it on the web…

]]> By: Jay Lyman http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215227 Jay Lyman Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:19:58 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215227 Thanks for the post, Phil. I question whether this is where OS goes downhill, whether anyone is trying to rip down anything, and whether anything is being taken away. GPLv2 and now GPLv3 are still very viable alternatives. AGPLv3 is simply ANOTHER choice. My point is that as with any choice, there will be winners and losers. You would obviously fall in the 'glass half-empty' category on AGPL, but I believe this will emerge as a major differentiator among vendors that mix open source and SaaS. JL Thanks for the post, Phil.

I question whether this is where OS goes downhill, whether anyone is trying to rip down anything, and whether anything is being taken away. GPLv2 and now GPLv3 are still very viable alternatives. AGPLv3 is simply ANOTHER choice. My point is that as with any choice, there will be winners and losers.

You would obviously fall in the ‘glass half-empty’ category on AGPL, but I believe this will emerge as a major differentiator among vendors that mix open source and SaaS.

JL

]]> By: Phil http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215221 Phil Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:06:01 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/#comment-215221 And this is where open source goes downhill.... Allowing someone to use software that you host IS NOT distributing the software. So lets be real about the situation. This is no longer about sharing code and the great things that come from that model. Its about trying to rip down any and all parts of the "establishment" and the portion of the community that agrees with this should just say that. Google hasn't exploited any loophole because there was no loophole in the first place. This was the BENEFIT of open source. You can't lock down and sell the code but you CAN make money by using it. The whole driving point was the ability to customize in-house and that is being taken away. People found a way to make open source softare profitable within the rules and now the community wants to change the rules and call it "closing a loophole". The whinning about Google not giving up code is outright CHILDISH. No company is going to use Linux if they have to give up their customizations. So you could begin to kiss the server market share for Linux goodbye and with good reason. You can also kiss government usage goodbye as well. I hope this license version does not catch on at all. I plan to release my own project this year that may very well be used for SaaS...in fact its geared for it. And I definitely want companies to feel comfortable being able to use and modify it to fit into my grand scheme. And this is where open source goes downhill….

Allowing someone to use software that you host IS NOT distributing the software. So lets be real about the situation. This is no longer about sharing code and the great things that come from that model. Its about trying to rip down any and all parts of the “establishment” and the portion of the community that agrees with this should just say that.

Google hasn’t exploited any loophole because there was no loophole in the first place. This was the BENEFIT of open source. You can’t lock down and sell the code but you CAN make money by using it. The whole driving point was the ability to customize in-house and that is being taken away. People found a way to make open source softare profitable within the rules and now the community wants to change the rules and call it “closing a loophole”. The whinning about Google not giving up code is outright CHILDISH.

No company is going to use Linux if they have to give up their customizations. So you could begin to kiss the server market share for Linux goodbye and with good reason. You can also kiss government usage goodbye as well. I hope this license version does not catch on at all. I plan to release my own project this year that may very well be used for SaaS…in fact its geared for it. And I definitely want companies to feel comfortable being able to use and modify it to fit into my grand scheme.

]]>