On 02/27/2014 11:48 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Yes. I'm currently convinced that a new copyleft license is
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).
It may be instructive to clarify the difference between the AGPL
and the "long talked about" LAGPL.
There are a couple of interpretations of the AGPL
1. Free all the softwarez
The source for all the software on the host providing the network service
must be provided as well as that on any hosts communicated with in the
process of propagating the service.
2. Free the implementation
The source for all the software on the host involved in providing
the network service must be provided.
3. Free what *would have been* conveyed
If the object code used to provide the network service had
been conveyed the same source must be provided as if
it had been conveyed under the GPL. One could imagine
this comprises the set of linked object code;
This may be the closest to the following snippet from
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.
None of these are likely to be an accurate characterization of the AGPL.
However if we pretend that the AGPL means #1 then LAGPL might mean
#2 or #3.
If the AGPL means #2 then LAGPL might mean #3.
If the AGPL means #3 then the LAGPL might mean that only the
source code for the "library" part of the covered work must
have source code provided:
The "library part" of the covered work might be defined as the
modified implementation of any API in the covered work, but not *new* API's
which are not present in the covered work. Of course this approach
is problematic as any new API almost certainly has derived from
the covered work.
With this context can we reach consensus on the line between
AGPL and LAGPL?
Does the answer to this question inform our understanding
of Network Service Source ("NSS") in copyleft-next
§3. Network Services Condition?
Does the answer to the AGPL/LAGPL question suggest that copyleft-next
needs an optional "Lesser" Network Services Condition?