Post ARzXw2PsT3UXCfYQca by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
(DIR) More posts by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
(DIR) Post #ARvXwWliqDTyhuAKxM by smallcircles@social.coop
2023-01-21T19:17:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil for a popular #FOSS project we're discussing relicensing from #MIT to either #AGPL-v3-or-later or AGPL-v3-only. Opinions vary.On one hand v3-only licensing may become outdated by new legislation, or miss out if a v4 is much better. Relicensing is then a high effort activity.OTOH having the "or later" seems like a folly, as its unknown what a future license version contains. If it is really bad, then that high effort relicensing is still in order.Do you have an opinion on this choice?
(DIR) Post #ARvXwXIKsxZQL3QNn6 by lxo@gnusocial.net
2023-01-23T04:30:13Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
if the project is not sure either way, maybe it makes sense to appoint a proxy, as per section 14:> If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.
(DIR) Post #ARvzPXjj1GpgrwI9Ue by tallship@gleasonator.com
2023-01-23T12:16:09.695786Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@smallcircles @neil Are we really discussing this now? And Is it the FOSS project you know that I'm thinking of? 🙂I've been mired in the Codeberg issue tracker lately and haven't given chat the attention it deserves, but I've only got so much time (money) to spend in contributing to the project each week and I have had to draw a hard budget line at $1.2k/week. I wish I could afford to donate more money each week to the project, but I also have to spend time actually earning that money as well as spending it elsewhere on comfort items... Like watching movies or going to see a local musician or poet perform. Lolz...Anyway, here's my take. MIT and BSD licenses are nice but subject to capture, and designed to work in a world that was generally without patent trolls in a sharing, institutional education environment.Scientists share - hypercapitalist corporations rip you off, inject proprietary closed sourced code into MIT licensed code they don't have to show you (a mere copyright notice stating that the product contains at least some freely licensed code will suffice in satisfying the licensing terms)... And if there's a novel "process" involved (i e., federating capabilities) they patent YOU and YOUR COLLEAGUES work for themselves.A few years back, I was stunned to find out that #Microsoft was receiving about $7 from every single #Android device shipped for #patents they hold related to Linux.But again, I digress...Okay...Basically, and for my part, I say "Copyleft", in the most general terms, and if it's software that is well suited as a self or commercially hosted SaaS offering environment, then #AGPL - but then, that begs your question: AGPL v3 or later, or AGPL v3 only?Yes, if you say, "or later", then you run the risk of unfavorable licensing at some point in the future, but that's not a certainty.But it is a constant, distinct possibility. Always has been.Being a pain in the ass to go from "3 only", or to "or later", or to some other constraint is an inconvenience - that's all. Time, labor, money. That's pretty much it when it comes to re-licensing. That cost goes down if #CONTRIBUTING.md specifies that contributors agree to the project re-licensing their contributions under some other #Copyleft license at some point in the future.To answer the rest of your question, I'mma just gonna get all #Socratic on you...1. ) Do you trust #RMS and the #FSF? - that used to be the question to ponder, because you were actually assigning control to them.2. ) What would #Linus do?Actually, what did Linus do?He chose #GPL v2 a long time ago when he re-licensed the #Linux kernel.He also chose GPL v2 "only" - and you can search on #PeerTube for videos that have him explaining why, and further, why he is happy that he didn't choose, "or later", and how he feels that, in retrospect, that would have been a very bad thing.So here's my 2¢, and I've already expressed this in my typical "IMNSHO" fashion a couple of times before in the project's Matrix room (if we're talking about the same project), but I'll give it again here one more time.A.) Do it now, rather than later, or do it yesterday if that's possible yet (you may need to consult H.G. Wells or Einstein in that regard).B.) Use a Copyleft license - specifically, I'm advocating for AGPL - but as long as it's Copyleft, preferably AGPL v3, my immediate concerns are alleviated. Whether that's "only", or "or later", that's of very little import AFAIC.C.) Ensure that CONTRIBUTING.md states that the project is at liberty to contribute patches to the deprecated, antecedent project in the form of patches gifted to them under the terms of the MIT license - after all, we want to be good neighbors and software stewards in the #FOSS spaceI've already discussed the simplicity of doing so in chat and consensus was roundly in favor with this approach, and also in doing it now.D.) Hard fork now.Finally, there had been much concern expressed from several of the other project members that we're going to suffer recruiting issues by not being able to insure to potential new contributors that their efforts won't be subject to #corporate or #special_interest or #trademark lobby #capture, where they could likely see their blood, sweat, and tears released as #closed_source #proprietary products, until such time as we do re-license under a Copyleft license.I hope that helps! 🙂#tallship⛵.
(DIR) Post #ARxTMIvaoRLdr5AsEa by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-01-24T05:26:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@smallcirclesWhat's more likely?A) FSF remain good license stewards and only make a v4 if it can better protect software freedomsB) FSF release a v4 that violates the spirit of v3Since A is more likely, the 'or later' saves a huge amount of housekeeping and administrivia to allow a license upgrade (eg when relicensing Wikipedia to create compatibility with CC licenses). If b) were to happen, and all contributors oppose use under v4, they can relicense (eg to remove the 'or later')@neil
(DIR) Post #ARxTzMD0Y2nJKAwSzw by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-21T20:02:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@smallcircles I think you outline the key considerations for the v3-only / any-later-version dichotomy well.If there was a large group of contributors, such that getting changes to inbound licensed could be tricky, I think I'd put my trust if the FSF, risky though that is.If getting inbound licensing changes, or code rewritten, might be easy? I might be more inclined towards v3 only, and managing contact details for contributors.
(DIR) Post #ARxTzMowH18TDogl7Y by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2023-01-21T20:15:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil Since the (A-)GPL contains a clause that only those versions can be considered later versions that preserve the spirit of the license, the risk is minimal.In the GPLv3 drafting process that was a big topic and they took great care to stay within the boundaries of the spirit of the license to make sure that even narrow interpretations by courts would see the GPLv3 as preserving the spirit of GPLv2.So I would always go for "or later versions". @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARxTzNSHuibxBr6BSC by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-21T20:18:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @smallcircles I must admit that I struggle with that clause for works where the FSF is not the copyright holder - I don't see what teeth it has, legally, in that situation.
(DIR) Post #ARxTzO11pYOsvbLvbU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-01-24T05:33:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil > I struggle with that clause for works where the FSF is not the copyright holderThe only works in the scope of this clause are new versions of the GPL. Under what circumstances would FSF not be the copyright holder?@ArneBab @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARxU1tQE27eaudKjtg by jfred@jawns.club
2023-01-21T20:08:19Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@smallcircles @neil One option in case you hadn't seen before it is the FLA: https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20171013-01.en.htmlI've not yet read through it in detail, but my understanding is it's basically a CLA that allows relicensing by a project steward with the stipulation that it must remain free software (presumably as defined by FSFE in this case, might be/probably is customizable)
(DIR) Post #ARxUQdkTRZKJXebZQm by KaKi87@mamot.fr
2023-01-21T20:52:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@smallcircles @neil More specifically, what makes relicensing hard is getting the agreement of everyone who ever contributed, right ?Have improvements or alternatives been researched on that matter ?
(DIR) Post #ARxUQeHnRfyvD0CBN2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-01-24T05:38:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@KaKi87> what makes relicensing hard is getting the agreement of everyone who ever contributed... presuming they all retained the copyright on their code, rather than signing it over to a project steward in a CLA, or to someone else, placing it in the public domain, etc.@smallcircles @neil
(DIR) Post #ARxVk97D9Av0HR6Zu4 by smallcircles@social.coop
2023-01-24T05:52:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @neil Though in principle I tend to agree, the "better protect" can have numerous subtle variations, and in such way that a person like me - a noob at legal matters - cannot oversee their impact.The whole licensing thing is tough. In general I feel that in the dev community people make the choice based on whims, hunches, murmurations, gut feelings and opinions formed by reading countless religion flavored articles, and not by their knowledge on legal matters.Hence I pinged Neil :)
(DIR) Post #ARxbEt49MrAZFg9R9k by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T06:54:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ArneBab @smallcircles The works here being the code licensed under the AGPLv3, not the text of the licence itself.
(DIR) Post #ARxo2ko1YFvtYx9YTA by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-01-24T09:18:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neilWe are talking about a clause in (A)GPLv3 which says that....> only those versions can be considered later versions that preserve the spirit of the licenseHow is...> code licensed under the AGPLv3... relevant to this clause, except in determining whether or not a future license version is allowed under an 'or later' permission to relicense?@ArneBab @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARxojpLgXLKG6XR8cq by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T09:25:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ArneBab @smallcircles > only those versions can be considered later versions that preserve the spirit of the licenseWhere are you getting this from? It looks like a paraphrasing of the first paragraph of clause 14 AGPLv3.0, rather than the precise wording, and that could be well be important to the discussion.
(DIR) Post #ARzXvrsBfSbIVHiNii by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T09:26:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ArneBab @smallcircles The scenario I have in mind is that Person A (who is not the FSF) licences their own code under AGPLv3.0 or any later version.The FSF releases AGPLv3.1.It is not - or is arguably not, but who wants to spend their time litigating FOSS licences? - "similar in spirit". But the FSF has published it nevertheless.Can Person B rely on AGPLv3.1 to permit them to perform an otherwise-restricted act in respect of Person A's code?
(DIR) Post #ARzXvxeaAxHcQpObLc by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T09:28:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ArneBab @smallcircles Clause 14 AGPLv3.0 says:> The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.So what if a new version is *not* "similar in spirit", whatever that means? Does it mean that the document published by the FSF called AGPLv3.1 is not a "later version"?
(DIR) Post #ARzXvyrNgr7CAoOKw4 by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2023-01-24T09:36:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil If the license is not similar in spirit, then yes: regardless of the name, you could not be sure whether the document would be a later version of AGPLv3.0 — and in case a court would find that it is in fact not a later version, because the requirement "will be similar in spirit" was broken, you’d be liable for copyright violation. @strypey @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARzXvzPPeKKxsMJVyq by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T09:55:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @strypey @smallcircles > a court would findI guess I'm always nervous about statements like that, as I've never found litigation to be a certain (or cheap!) process.I don't think relying on "or any later version" is a risk-free process (and I'm probably not likely to persuaded otherwise, really!), but I do still think it makes sense, especially for projects with larger projects / projets with lots of contributors and no assignment.
(DIR) Post #ARzXvzpe4nJxBiaSrw by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T09:30:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @ArneBab @smallcircles This is, IMHO, one of the messier bits of the licence. I think it might be different where Person A is the FSF - the licensor of the code in question - but it's less clear where Person A is *not* the FSF.
(DIR) Post #ARzXw1NiJcANzfXBbs by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2023-01-24T10:07:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil don’t forget the "in case a" — this is about legal uncertainty which most people wouldn’t want to risk, especially if their livelyhood depends on the license.So a AGPLv3.1 for which there is any substantiated doubt whether it preserves the spirit of AGPLv3.0 would at least be even more of a red flag to larger businesses than AGPLv3.0 currently is.Which means that the FSF is very unlikely to take that step, and even if they go evil, the damage would be contained.@strypey @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARzXw1v2Jiozf17nY8 by neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk
2023-01-24T10:11:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @strypey @smallcircles We might have a different perception of legal risk, but overall are we not both in favour of including "or any later version", in at least some situations?
(DIR) Post #ARzXw2PsT3UXCfYQca by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2023-01-24T11:40:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil I am in favor of always adding "or any later version" for GPL licenses, because the legal risk of the environment changing so the guarantees for copyleft no longer work is bigger than the legal risk of FSF creating an evil license and courts upholding that evil license as successor on the long run.I am in favor of "or any later version", because I’ve seen how important it is and the "in spirit" clause protects me against potential wrongdoing.@strypey @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARzXw2tegLJKh1UD2G by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2023-01-24T10:08:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil That clause basically means that you don’t have to trust FSF to stay good. The license can live on even if FSF goes bad. @strypey @smallcircles
(DIR) Post #ARzXw2zKLFqcyc8jsO by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-01-25T05:26:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I also support "or later" licensing and this pretty much sums up the reasoning:@ArneBab> the legal risk of the environment changing so the guarantees for copyleft no longer work is bigger than the legal risk of FSF creating an evil license With both Tivoization and the JavaScript Trap, the copyleft in GPLv2 can't work as intended. (A)GPLv3 fixes these issues, but its efficacy was limited by the lack of an "or later" in the licenses of many projects (eg Linux).@neil @smallcircles