Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía:
>>In response section 6:
>>(So that I can reference, the full section:)
>>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>>Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>>original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
>>these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
>>on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
>>responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
>> It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would
>> include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it.
> If you look closely, it says "subject to these terms and conditions" and
>"the rights granted herein", not "subject to the same terms and conditions
>under which you received the Program" nor "the rights granted to you".
>> I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL
>> without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added
>> at all?
> You can, if you remove the preamble.
>>In response to the dissident problem:
>>I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident
>>has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available
>>through some computer network.
> Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself,
>like in the GPL.
>> If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they
>>have already incriminated themselves
> Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code
>might include "workflow" code that reflects the structure of the dissident
>organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the
>local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published
>and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains
>information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating.
In response to "You can, if you remove the preamble"
Yes, I realized that just a bit too late, but have now made a hybrid
license. The FAQ doesn't make it clear whether you should maintain the
FSF Copyright ... on the one hand, the FAQ seems pretty insistant that
you remove all reference to GNU or FSF, but on the other hand, it's
certainly still copyrighted by the FSF. :(
In response to "An interface to the program, not the program itself"
Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference?
I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people
who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the
In response to the dissident problem:
I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary
of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that
as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. So
what do they do? They don't put it on a public server. This is not
discrimination against these dissidents, because they are not required
to put it on a public server. Well, my proposed modified license also
does not require that they put it on a public server. Even if they do
put it on a public server, they can put it behind a .htpasswd file.
Users who are blocked by the .htpasswd file never interact with the
program, and hence the code does not need to be sent.
Realistically, to most users, and even to most programmers most of the
time, a binary is just a black hole that produces output. Source is
what makes it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to
read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited
only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running
over a network.
And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction
between having a binary on one's system and running it through other
Just my opinion though *shrugs*
- Gregor Richards
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.