Re: GNU GPLv3 & GNU Affero GPLv3

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> >        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero
> > So, I propose upgrade to GNU Affero GPLv3 when it be released.
> > Let me know any disagreement.
>
> Two problems:
>
> Firstly, I don't want to buy a pig in a poke, a bag of cats, or
> whatever your local equivalent expression is.  I'll make my mind up on
> GAGPL when it is out of their Web-2.Null consultation interface and I
> can see it properly.

Oops! You are right. We should wait up to it be released before making
a decision about using it or not.  I agree with you about this point!


> Secondly, I don't expect a new Affero licence to be free software.
> Compare the Affero source-publishing requirement with the answer to
> "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my
> program?"  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> Where does this line lie?  Why is it OK to put restrictions on the
> output of web programs but not hardware design programs?

It does not put restrictions on the output of web programs.  It just
says you have to provide access to get a copy of such software. Such
access have not to be embedded inside your webapp, it can be even in
another network server:

   "... if you modify the Program, ...
    access to copy Source from a network server ..."

 Reference: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html


When you use a web application usually you are not offered to get the
source code of such application 'distributed' to you.  Usually you are
'locked' on that webapp. This hole is what the GAGPL try to fix.


Your personal data, resume, etc. are not forced to be licensed,
however the xHTML template, which you see in your browser, and all the
PHP and database backend source code are forced to be licensed.

Something similar happens regarding the hardware design program case.
The design program can be FS, but the hardware design (the data),
which has been worked out by the user of such program, have not to be
FS.

At one side of the line is the program itself and at the other one the
data which the user of such program has worked out.



> Personally, I hope that FSF never publish GAGPL and so never open the
> route for GPLv3 developers to activate GNU's Very Own Obnoxious
> Advertising Clause, like http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

I do not understand this comment. I think the 'license-extension'
feature has not been added in GPLv3 final.  Anyway, I personally think
when you develop a free software web application, an obnoxious
advertising clause would be less important than the lack of an
Affero-like protection.


It would be great if you add your fears and comments at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html

Davi