Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their
> software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to
> prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money,
> any more than Linus Torvalds who uses GPL for his software wants to
> prevent Red Hat and SuSE from making money. They only want the
> *software* to be open and free. I am surprised you could have such a
> misunderstanding as stated by you above.
Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned money, as that does take the
discussion off in different directions. My point was simply that a
principle of free software has always been that users are not
*required* to share their own changes to the software. It is simply
that if they *do* distribute (or "propagate/convey", in GPL3 language)
then they must do so under the GPL.
The AGPL fundamentally changes this principle by saying, "If you use
the software for certain purposes, then we *are* going to make you
share your changes".
> My question that started this thread was whether a simple ASP-fix
> clause would make a work non-DFSG-free. The licensing terms *I* am
> presenting for discussion is a Sleepycat+ASP-fix license which I
> have already outlined on this list.
I suspect any ASP fix is going to run into a problem with para 6 of
the DFSG, since by its nature any such fix imposes differing
obligations depending on whether you use the software on a
publicly-accessible network or "behind the firewall".
This introduces a new distinction between different types of user (as
opposed to modifiers or distributors), which is a departure from
existing free software principles, where users are normally given
unrestricted rights.
> Are you saying that many companies are now making money by not
> freeing and opening the FOSS, private modifications and derivative
> works that they ostensibly "privately use" and "not distribute" for
> their network services and those companies could face financial
> troubles if they are forced to free and open up their private
> modifications and private derivative works ("private" meaning
> "non-distributed" in the pre-AGPL sense of the term "distribute")?
Plenty of other companies are making money by not sharing the private
modifications they have made to free software they use internally for
*non*-networked services. Should they be required to share their
changes in the same way as those who providing network-facing
services? This seems to take us in the direction of a general
principle that "if you make money from free software then you must
share your changes with others".
John
Reply to: