On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:08:00 -0700
Luis Villa <luis(a)lu.is> wrote:
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.
I have had similar thoughts. This is all related to the "epiphany"
bkuhn confessed to experiencing at (a?) Bertucci's in Cambridge, Mass.
on Saturday, 22 March 2014, at approximately 21:00 EDT, in the course
of a conversation about the notion of LAGPL with, primarily, Chris
Webber and me. Not that it's relevant, but Bertucci's is a Massachusetts
restaurant chain serving pseudo-Italian food. HBR does not compel
disclosure of bkuhn's epiphany, since it was an AGPL (and GPL) epiphany
that had nothing directly to do with copyleft-next, but in any case I
am not even clear on what bkuhn's epiphany actually was, I merely know
what it is *about*.
I cannot say whether bkuhn is currently subscribed to this mailing
list, as that list is not public (though I wonder whether HBR implies
it should be) and, moreover, I am too busy to check anyway. In any
event the archives of this list are (by default) public. If bkuhn
happens to read this perhaps he'd be willing to share some of his
Apart from all that, I intend to respond substantively to Tom's message
in due course.
On Mar 27, 2014 8:02 PM, "Tom Marble" <tmarble(a)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
> 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?
> Comments welcome!
> copyleft-next mailing list