On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:42:11 -0600
Tom Marble <tmarble(a)info9.net> wrote:
> Section 3:
> This is a new section containing an attempt at an Affero-style
Does this mean that previously signaled intent to create
"copyleft-next-ns" has been folded into the current
draft of copyleft-next?
Yes. I'm currently convinced that a new copyleft license is largely
pointless without an 'Affero provision' by default. However this makes
the drafting effort much more difficult. I actually think my 1-2 hour
attempt, while quite suboptimal, is better than AGPLv3 or any
predecessor licenses that tried to tackle this issue (typically by
expanding the definition of 'distribution', an unworkable approach if
you ask me).
Is there a "verbatim" loophole? If My Code is simply
on a network as is without any changes does §3 no longer apply?
If there are no changes relative to "My" Code, then section 3 does not
apply. One thing that this provision tries to clarify is an
interpretive disagreement I had with bkuhn over AGPLv3 at OSCON 2013.
This is that a mere distributor of an AGPLv3 work which the distributor
has modified (I suppose it would have to be modified to become an
AGPLv3-interesting work) must contain something in it that is expected
to cause automatic compliance with the AGPLv3 requirement for the
recipient who hosts a 'verbatim' version.
I was reading AGPLv3 more narrowly than bkuhn was, and I'm still not
totally convinced he's right as far as AGPLv3 interpretation is
concerned. But I think he's probably right as a policy matter.
So 'verbatim' code is supposed to already be in compliance. In any case
where it isn't, it either isn't 'Your' fault or else 'I'
care about 'You' complying with this provision.
Yeah, I had the same thought. I'll change it or maybe unify the
currently dual definitions of Corresponding Source.
How does this provision of copyleft-next differ from
this FSF interpretation of the AGPLv3?
"If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero
GPL, the server is required to offer the users the corresponding
source of that program. That is good, but having this source code
does not give them control over the computing done on that server. It
also does not tell them what other software may be running on that
server, examining or changing their data in other ways."
My twin definitions of Corresponding Source are intentionally somewhat
broader than the definition in GPLv3/AGPLv3, notably in adopting a
couple of suggestions that originated with bkuhn, who probably won't
read this message for another few years.
Well, the main point of the references here is just to clarify (to a
reasonably satisfactory degree) what is meant by a given license label.
I don't think merely listing the common name of the license is enough.
I've used the SPDX abbreviations here, a concession of sorts (since I
personally dislike the SPDX abbreviations for aesthetic reasons).
> MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
Does OSI offer plain text versions of approved licenses?
Er, I don't think so, or at least if it does it's not obvious to me
where they are. :)