libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] RollApp: proof that we need to deprecate GPL f


From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] RollApp: proof that we need to deprecate GPL for AGPL for everything
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:41:45 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0


On 09/12/2015 01:03 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 09/12/2015 10:38 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>>> Aaron Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 09/12/2015 09:58 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree with this; I don't think that everyone should be forced to
>>>>> further distribute all software
>>>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic).
>>>>>
>>>>> But based on your stance that all culture should be modifiable, I at
>>>>> least understand (and I think also appreciate) where you are coming
>>>>> from.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you are confused. The AGPL and my own views do NOT say that
>>>> anyone is forced to distribute. Period.
>>>>
>>>> If you do *private* things with any AGPL or other cultural works or
>>>> programs, you can do anything you want at all, period.
>>>
>>> I guess that would depend on what you consider private use
>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods)
>>>
>>
>> Yoni, the AGPL does not come into effect if a company uses software
>> *internally*. That is private. That is what it means. This
>> interpretation is legally solid enough that no judgment-call or "what
>> you consider" step is needed.
> 
> I can't say anything about what's legal; I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> My understanding of the situation is that people inside the same
> organization where the software is deployed are not excluded from the
> group "users interacting with it remotely through a computer network"
> merely because they're part of the same organization.
> 

Hi Yoni,

There is zero doubt here. I know what I'm saying is true. You are
mistaken about internal use in a company falling under the terms of the
license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3CoworkerConveying

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoDistributionRequirements

The Affero clause does not change any of this. It merely says that
access over a network counts the same as being given a copy of a binary.
A company can clearly (per the FAQ above) internally distribute
unmodified or modified binaries without giving each employee personal
copy under GPL — i.e. modifications could stay private to the company
and the company can bar the employees from publishing the modified
software. The Affero clause doesn't change this at all. Software running
on an internal network in the company does not convey the software to
the legal entity of each employee to freely use under AGPL. The AGPL
terms *only* apply when the software is conveyed outside the company.

Whether you are a private individual or institution, you have complete
freedom to use AGPL software and modify it as you wish without any
concern about mandatory publication of the modifications. The only
license I know of which has a mandatory-publishing clause is the Watcom
license which the FSF rejects because of this very clause that infringes
the freedom to modify the software and use on your own terms as you wish.

Best,
Aaron

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]