Note that a quasi LAGPL need not be less restrictive than AGPL; it could serve a similar purpose merely by resolving the uncertainty you point out about the scope of AGPL.

Luis

On Mar 27, 2014 8:02 PM, "Tom Marble" <tmarble@info9.net> wrote:
On 02/27/2014 11:48 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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).

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;
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

This may be the closest to the following snippet from
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
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:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL

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?

Comments welcome!

--Tom
_______________________________________________
copyleft-next mailing list
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next