Aaron Wolf writes:
Note that AGPL does not fully protect the freedom of users of server-run software. It is a fall-back / check and balance against abuse, but when you use software on a server, you cannot have full freedoms as you are not running it. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve
AGPL provides the capacity to check the code (to know what the software is doing) and to get the code to run elsewhere. It's certainly something.
Since you consider that AGPL does not fully protect user freedom, you can consider that the license I seek does not fully protect user freedom either.
Aaron Wolf writes:
The problem I was getting at is this: what scenarios could there be where the authors of software used in such surveillance *choose* to use this freedom-focused license?
They would choose this freedom-focused because the freedom-focused license would be viral. This is the purpose of copyleft.
Aaron Wolf writes:
Companies and governments that want to secretly surveil us will not use such a license for software they make. And why would free-software focused developers make such surveillance software in the first place?
If the developers of such software don't otherwise care about freedoms, licensing won't help. We'd need laws to regulate such software.
Fischers Fritz wrote yesterday:
I imagine that a well funded surveillance project would choose the alternative of writing a proprietary clone, but at least that would make the surveillance a little more expensive.
Aaron Wolf writes:
But I might be paranoid as a user. Now anyone who steps in front of my camera could sue me if I neglect to post the notice about source access? That's much more broad than merely applying at the exact time that I distribute software. Suddenly I have some license liability every time I use the software…
I find it ambitious to account for paranoia in a software license. Conveniently, I don't think it matters, because I have heard of many people without paranoia who share the concerns you mention.
Regardless of whether the user fear is explained by illness, I gather that a person with the fear you describe would choose not to install the free surveillance software. This is by design.
Academic salutations, Fritz