Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Bill Allombert wrote:
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
> with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such
> interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your
> by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no
> charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of
> software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for
> any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is
> incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
This is obviously only relevant if the software is interacted with
remotely which is made cristal clear with the '(if your version supports
> 2. This clause is incompatible with Section 3. of the Debian Free Software
> 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require you to
> write a substantial amount of extra code to comply with this clause.
Not at all unless the modified version is interacted with remotely which
should make providing the source trivial AFAICS?
> 2.2 This clause forces the developer modifying the software to incur cost.
> A developer modifying the software and distributing the modified version
> need to incur the cost of providing access to the Corresponding Source from
> a network server as long as at least one person is using the software and
> this for all published modifications, even long after the developer stopped
> using and/or distributing the software.
As long as the users are using it by interacting remotely with it...
> 2.2. While this clause does restrict mere use of the software, instead it
> creates liabilities for people modifying the software, even if they
> distributed their modified version in source form, with respect to the way
> the software perform on user systems.
If you distribute it in source form, there are no users interacting with
it remotely AFAICS?
> -- Modifying the software can unwillingly introduce a bug that cause it
> not to comply with this clause.
> -- A user of the modified version can mis-install it, mis-configure it or
> run it in an untested environment where it does not comply with this
Yes, that's the same for many other software where you for instance need
to show a disclaimer.
> -- A user of the modified version can use it in a configuration that cause
> it to fail to comply with this clause (for example using a reverse proxy
> that remove link to the source code from the html output).
Same as above.
> 3. This clause is incompatible with Section 6. of the Debian Free Software
> 3.1 This clause does not allow you to modify the software to perform tasks
> where complying with it is not technically feasible, for example:
> -- The code is modified to run on an embedded system with tight size limit.
And there will be users remotely interacting with it? While possible,
it's something to consider when using it on an embedded device. Though
the same is true for huge applications.
> -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network connection
> with extremely low throughput.
Why would that cause any problem? It's not because one needs to provide
the source that it has to be downloaded AFAICS?
> -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network protocol
> that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
Any example of this?