On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:24:52 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>: > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > > >> I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged > >> on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred > >> onto third parties for whom the cost is probably negligible, like code > >> hosting sites. > > > > I think this thread already saw more than one explanation of why this > > is not necessarily possible. For instance: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/09/msg00016.html > > Alright, let me see the objections in that message... > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please do not mis-attribute your quotes: the objections you are quoting are mine, not Daniel Dickinson's... > > * if the application runs on a resource-limited server (think about > > a small embedded system...), I cannot use the same host > > So? Put it up in Sourceforge or another server. What's the big deal > about using another server? The indefinite article "a" in the AGPL > clearly allows this. The "big deal" is caused by the fact that the other options have issues, as outlined below... > > > * if I don't want to publish the application (but only distribute it > > to my users), I cannot use a public hosting service > > Sure you can, just use an authentication system. There are many public > hosting services that allow you to enforce an authentication system. An authentication system somehow linked to the network application own authentication system, so that when a new account is created for the application, the new user is granted access to source hosted on the public service? Technically possible, but a bit complicated... I don't know how many public hosting services allow such a setup, but forcing me to adopt a complicated mechanism seems to be a significant restriction on my act of running the application. > > > * if I cannot afford the costs of ensuring it is available as long as > > the application runs, I cannot use another host owned or hired by me > > Againt, those costs can be transferred to other agents for whom the > cost is presumably negligible. The fact that I can dump the cost to other (generous) people, does not mean that the cost does not exist. There's a source distribution cost associated with the act of running the application, whoever is willing to pay that cost. Moreover, those "agents" (i.e.: public hosting services) are not going to ensure that the source is available as long as the application runs. I haven't seen any convincing argument that this is not a issue. > > 2008/9/13 Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>: > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: [...] > >> For instances where the maintenance could be cumbersome, I think the > >> alternative methods of providing source, such as all at once when you > >> first transfer the software, could be effective. > > > > Suppose I never first transfered the software: I just run the > > application on my server. Your alternative method does not apply. > > That's true, but you received the AGPLed software somehow in the first > place. Perhaps it's not fair of me to assume that if you were able to > receive the software, you cannot use the same symmetrical method to > distribute your modified source. But again, I have difficulty > envisioning a system where you're able to run a server that everyone > in the world can use to interface to but you cannot provide code to > anyone who uses this globally-available code. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. You were suggesting that, for difficult cases, one can always provide source when he/she transfers the software. I was simply pointing out that this alternative method (even assuming that it actually is a way to comply with AfferoGPLv3 Section 13!) is not always a viable option. Suppose, for instance, that I downloaded the source for the application, modified it, compiled it and installed on my server; the modified application now runs on my server, where remote users from all continents access to it, but I haven't ever transfer the (compiled) application to any remote user. In this case, the alternative method you suggest is not applicable. [...] > > And anyway, a work cannot claim to be Free Software, while forbidding > > some scenarios just because they are "weird". > > Yes you can. Suppose aliens invade the Earth, closely monitor all > network traffic as well as sneakernet and instantly destroy anyone who > attempts to distribute source, but allow distribution of binaries. Oh > no! You cannot comply with the GPL anymore without being vapourised! > Clearly the GPL is non-free in this scenario. No, it isn't. In your example, the restriction is external to the license: the GPL cannot be blamed, if some external entity effectively forbids the very concept of Free Software. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp8P6o7vkkYo.pgp
Description: PGP signature