Aaron Wolf writes:
Are you picturing a case of something like telemetry software that is benign and useful enough given transparency and acceptance by anyone who is getting measured
I am not particularly interested in any of benign software, telemetry software, nor surveillance software. I would the users of software to have control over all of their software, regardless of how the software is categorized.
* If the software usage is realized through execution of a binary, GPL and AGPL protect the freedom of users. * If the software usage is realized through communication with network server software, AGPL protects the freedom of users. * If the software usage is realized through being surveilled by methods other than binaries or network servers (for example, through computer-assisted interrogations or surveillance cameras), would it be possible to require additionally that the people being surveilled (often called "useds" than users) have the same freedoms? That is, they would be allowed to run their own installations of the surveillance software, to study the source code, to share the software, and modify the software. And this is in addition to the protecting the rights of those conducting the surveillance, likely by the same methods as used in GPL and AGPL.
Perhaps it will be informative for me to elaborate on my example.
Suppose that I write a Gtk button widget. It is special because of its special feature for changing shape among different animals depending on a parameter. Jinny writes a surveillance camera software in Gtk, and then Pauly uses the surveillance camera software to spy on Julian.
* If I license my Gtk button widget under GPL (any version) or AGPL, then Jinny is obliged to license the rest of the camera software under a compatible license and to provide the source code to Pauly. Pauly is not obliged to provide any source code to Julian. * Can I license my Gtk button widget in such a way that Pauly would be obliged to provide the source code to Julian?
Here is another example. I put a camera inside my house so that I can see who is in the house when my family is not home. Kim robs the house, and the camera records him robbing the house. Is there a software license that gives Kim the right to obtain the source code to the camera software? He could obtain the source code by following the instructions that I had posted on the wall next to the camera.
I believe that my curiousity is fundamentally whether surveillance can be defined such that surveillance software would count as a user product delivered to both the people conducting surveillance and to the people subject to surveillance.
I avail itself of this opportunity to renew to you the assurances of my highest consideration.
Fritz
Those joining from copyleft-next may find Aaron and my previous messages in the libreplanet-discuss archives. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2020-01/msg00002.html
On 2020-01-14 6:38 p.m., fischersfritz@sent.at wrote:
Aaron Wolf writes:
Are you picturing a case of something like telemetry software that is benign and useful enough given transparency and acceptance by anyone who is getting measured
I am not particularly interested in any of benign software, telemetry software, nor surveillance software. I would the users of software to have control over all of their software, regardless of how the software is categorized.
- If the software usage is realized through execution of a binary, GPL and AGPL protect the freedom of users.
- If the software usage is realized through communication with network server software, AGPL protects the freedom of users.
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.
- If the software usage is realized through being surveilled by methods other than binaries or network servers (for example, through computer-assisted interrogations or surveillance cameras), would it be possible to require additionally that the people being surveilled (often called "useds" than users) have the same freedoms? That is, they would be allowed to run their own installations of the surveillance software, to study the source code, to share the software, and modify the software. And this is in addition to the protecting the rights of those conducting the surveillance, likely by the same methods as used in GPL and AGPL.
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?
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.
Perhaps it will be informative for me to elaborate on my example.
Suppose that I write a Gtk button widget. It is special because of its special feature for changing shape among different animals depending on a parameter. Jinny writes a surveillance camera software in Gtk, and then Pauly uses the surveillance camera software to spy on Julian.
- If I license my Gtk button widget under GPL (any version) or AGPL, then Jinny is obliged to license the rest of the camera software under a compatible license and to provide the source code to Pauly. Pauly is not obliged to provide any source code to Julian.
- Can I license my Gtk button widget in such a way that Pauly would be obliged to provide the source code to Julian?
Gotcha, the goal is to just limit the software anyone can use as part of surveillance software (that stays secret and anti-user). That makes some sense.
Here is another example. I put a camera inside my house so that I can see who is in the house when my family is not home. Kim robs the house, and the camera records him robbing the house. Is there a software license that gives Kim the right to obtain the source code to the camera software? He could obtain the source code by following the instructions that I had posted on the wall next to the camera.
I believe that my curiousity is fundamentally whether surveillance can be defined such that surveillance software would count as a user product delivered to both the people conducting surveillance and to the people subject to surveillance.
I think a license could exist that would require, e.g., the users of camera software to offer the software to anyone they ever take a photo of. It might not be easy to enforce, but some cases could be clear.
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 avail itself of this opportunity to renew to you the assurances of my highest consideration.
Fritz
Those joining from copyleft-next may find Aaron and my previous messages in the libreplanet-discuss archives. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2020-01/msg00002.html
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
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Aaron Wolf -
fischersfritz＠sent.at