Post ApWDgFDvfu8iIXP6Bs by fuzzychef@m6n.io
(DIR) More posts by fuzzychef@m6n.io
(DIR) Post #ApWDgFDvfu8iIXP6Bs by fuzzychef@m6n.io
2024-10-16T19:57:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chrisjrn @mcc Eben Moglin's views, mostly (not that that makes things better).It would be fascinating for someone to do an analysis of GPLv3 today and whether Moglin successfully future-proofed it.
(DIR) Post #ApWDgG1YhNq2mScjY0 by jzb@mastodon.social
2024-10-16T20:03:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fuzzychef @chrisjrn @mcc Narrator: He did not.I guess the question is "against what?" but in my not-lawyerly opinion, no. The "2001-2006 views" is a good summary, I think. I'd be curious what @richardfontana would say, though.
(DIR) Post #ApWDgGkE1JZF0zWPAW by chrisjrn@social.coop
2024-10-16T20:08:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jzb It completely missed the rise of SaaS, and spent too long focusing on the scourge of appliances (which, as it turns out are irrelevant if they're connecting to SaaSes)@fuzzychef @mcc @richardfontana
(DIR) Post #ApWDgHDIHEosT97cTg by mcc@mastodon.social
2024-10-16T20:18:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chrisjrn @jzb @fuzzychef @richardfontana Wait isn't agpl all about saas. Or does AGPL fail because it only works if the code is on the service side
(DIR) Post #ApWDgHqHwG0mQ5MlG4 by chrisjrn@social.coop
2024-10-16T20:22:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mcc The AGPL wasn't RMS's work, that was primarily down to Bradley Kuhn; and it arguably remained a fork because RMS didn't think SaaSes were important@jzb @fuzzychef @richardfontana
(DIR) Post #ApWDgINFxgNo4Kn5e4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-12-28T22:43:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chrisjrn> AGPL ... arguably remained a fork because RMS didn't think SaaSes were importantI think it was @jxself I saw saying that a lot of FSF partisans thought the Affero clause ought to be folded into GPL itself. Can't remember what he said the reasoning was for not doing that, but the separate GNU Affero license was a compromise. @mcc @jzb @fuzzychef @richardfontana
(DIR) Post #ApWEfqwI41o6w2Wx2u by jxself@mastodon.social
2024-12-28T22:54:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @chrisjrn @mcc @jzb @fuzzychef @richardfontana Yes, the earlier drafts of GPLv3 were intended to have the Affero clause. In GPLv3 Discussion Draft #3 it was pulled out into a separate license. The FSF has their rationale in https://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-rationale.pdf/
(DIR) Post #ApWIzhN3kQDMrsloGG by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-12-28T23:43:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jxself is there an HTML version of that PDF? Ideally with anchor links for each section. The PDF is really hard to navigate on a mobile.
(DIR) Post #ApWKZv0ccQq1Xr6snA by jxself@mastodon.social
2024-12-29T00:01:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey The only other versions I know of are available in PostScript and LaTeX: https://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-guide/Go to section 4.2 starting on page 29 of the PDF.
(DIR) Post #ApWqueLecLB5UDx6rQ by lxo@gnusocial.jp
2024-12-29T01:21:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I, for one, don't think AGPL should be folded into the GPL. when the job the program does is the operator's computing, rather than a remote client's computing, the user is the operator, and the AGPL would fail to respect the user's freedom
(DIR) Post #ApWqufgbdvX1dUlM9o by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2024-12-29T06:03:30.308197Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @strypey >when the job the program does is the operator's computing, rather than a remote client's computing, the user is the operator, and the AGPL would fail to respect the user's freedom The AGPLv3 is written not to have that flaw - when the user is the operator, no source code has to be provided to anyone, as the only user already has it after all;>Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.SaaSS hosts are not even required to supply any source code to the users provided they don't modify the software (even then, the user should be able to find it just fine via the software name inserted into the footer etc).The AGPLv3 is specifically designed to apply to the case where a SaaSS host takes the software and adds malware and spyware to it, as then that SaaSS host is then legally required to provide evidence of their criminal activities to the users and also allow them to remove it and release a fixed version.google and other malicious parties hate the AGPLv3 for that reason alone - but doesn't that just make you want to license under AGPLv3-or-later harder?If the GPLv4 ever needs to be written, the remote network interaction requirement should be included, although it should also be more explicitly stated that it does not apply to purely personal usage of the software.
(DIR) Post #ApX5qgENAtkPTm6zZY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-12-29T08:50:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo > the user is the operator, and the AGPL would fail to respect the user's freedomThis is a great summary of an argument that needs a blog length explanation to make sense to me. Know of any you could link to?