Re: APSL 2.0

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:

> I don't think that such a licence term is particularly egregious.  Look at
> the GPL requirement - if you get the binary, you can get the source.  Now,
> who gets binaries?  Users.  So, users get the source to the programs they're
> using.  Now move to a webapp.  Who uses/views the webapp?  Users.  So, under
> the APSL 2.0, users get the source to the programs they're using.
>
> Handwaving it may be, but I think the intent is similar.

If your premises were true, I'd agree with your conclusion.  But I've
never believed that renting someone an account on my system requires me
to provide source to all the GNU tools installed there.  This is a
radical change.  It affects not only the web, but encumbers every
other service, currently existing or not yet imagined, running over a
network.

For example, if this clause were in the GPL, it would require me to
provide full source to the Linux kernel, Emacs, gawk, Perl, etc.
Yuck!  What a burden on providing access to a computer.  In addition,
would this require source to mailing list software be distributed to
subscribers?  How about spammers; they're using it, right?

If I set up a weather-monitoring device with an embedded Linux kernel,
and it publishes temperature and air pressure data over SNMP, do I
have to provide the source to those?

If I send a message like this one, which quotes yours, do I need to
send you the source for Emacs and Gnus?  How about my MTA?  If there
are routers in between which use APSL code, are you entitled to the
source for them too?

> The FSF chant is "the users get the source".  The GPL was written in a time
> when the web didn't exist, and it was impossible to foresee this way of
> distributing applications.  I think this clause of the APSL 2.0 merely
> brings GPL concepts into the modern era.

I think this era isn't very different from that of 15 years ago.  RMS,
and the FSF, are spooked by the success of web service providers.
They didn't seem very upset by modems, remote terminals, and
timesharing systems, though.  I think they're just experiencing
culture shock, and are overreacting to something which really isn't an
important change.

Worse, they're adding a sufficient encumbrance to networking computer
systems to lock code available only under an APSL/Affero style license
out of networked environments.  If they succeed in promulgating these
ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems.  Perhaps a good way
of summing up the problem is this:

They're discriminating against a field of endeavor.  Now, it's Free to
discriminate against a business model, such as "A monopoly on software
in boxes on shelves."  It's not Free to discriminate against a use
model, such as "running nuclear power plants."  This is discrimination
against both a business model (web services providers) and a use model
(providing access to computers over a network).

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/