Sorry for top quoting (darn pocket outlook, roll-on neo 1973)
Your scenario is nearly right.
What if the same person adds features to gcc as well.
Are those features AGPL or GPL as gcc is gpl.
I want then to be gpl, I think they would be AGPl.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Agger <agger(a)c.dk>
Sent: 23 November 2007 18:58
To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
Subject: Re: Questions / Concepts GPL. Was: Re: GPL License with clause for Web use?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sam Liddicott wrote:
> I want them to use it, I just want modifications to the GPL3 part to be
> GPL3 licensed. Thats why I propose the AGPL link-exception alternative
> to GPL3/13
Well,
this is section 13 of GPLv3:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such."
Note: It says that *the terms of this License will continue to apply to
the part which is the covered work*, which is: If you combine a work
under the GPLv3 with a work under the Affero GPL, e.g. I create a
realtime online GCC compiler using a CMS under the Affero GPL (not that
weird an idea: The compiler might create binaries for portable devices
on which it's not easy to install a compiler yourself), then the Affero
GPL will apply to the CMS as well to the work as a whole - HOWEVER, the
GCC compiler will still be pure GPLv3.
As far as I can see, that's exactly what you want?
To put it in other words: If somebody includes a GPLv3 project in a
program released under the Affero GPL, I will be able to extract this
project' part and work with it under the GPLv3 ("the terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work"),
however, if I want to use the *combined* work (like the online GCC
compiler), I must stick to the Affero GPL.
If that's the case, it works as you say you wish?
br
carsten
- --
http/::www.modspil.dk/itpolitik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHRyJtletyW1YzdSERAu6lAJ4nVfSKkqwTnoKZobzvE7w1JxDN5wCfYUXN
Phud0GAzdGQKhKIctoCUrS0=
=+GBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
> "David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:
> > But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra
> > things.
>
> You have to do extra things because you made the software publicly
> available.
>
> Putting it on a server for others isn't a "use" by you any more than
> putting a CD of the software in somebody elses hands is.
Would it be acceptable for a free software licence to require that the
web browsers or word processors on my laptop always have a "download
source" control which always works for the user?
That would certainly stop me letting people borrow my browser for a
few minutes on the train to check their connections... "wait a mo,
you're legally required to let it burn me a source CD".
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
I am looking for a license that is like the GPL, but also includes any
form of embedded web use (server side, or flash-like client side) as a
form of distribution.
That is, any user of the said web service must also be given access to
the source code of that web service (along with modification rights, etc...)
I looked at the Alfero GPL, though I'm not entirely sure that is exactly
what I mean (seciont 2d is not clearly what I mean, I think).
Is there such a license in common use?
--
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/
Sign: Please digitally sign your emails.
Encrypt: I'm also happy to receive encrypted mail.
Hi guys
What type of resources would you specifically find useful with regards
Free Software licensing?
There are some good resources out there for the GNU licences. I don't
want to duplicate work. What I am interested in is talking about what
additional resources you may find useful.
Shane
--
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan(a)fsfeurope.org
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org
On 21/11/2007, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
> The upcoming version of the GFDL is still being drafted. Please submit
> comments - including negative ones there (in addition to here, if you like;
> I'm not trying to push criticism off this list).
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
Speaking as someone working on the largest GFDL-using project, our
wishlist is simple:
1. Make it compatible with a future CC-by-sa.
That's it. That's all. That's the lot.
- d.
Free Software Foundation Releases GNU Affero General Public License
Version 3
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA---Monday, November 19, 2007---The Free
Software Foundation (FSF) today published the GNU Affero General Public
License version 3 (GNU AGPLv3). This is a new license; it is based on
version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPLv3), but has an
additional term to allow users who interact with the licensed software
overa network to receive the source for that program. By publishing this
license, the FSF aims to foster user and development communities around
network-oriented free software.
The GNU GPL allows people to modify the software they receive, and share
those modified versions with others, as long as they make source
available to the recipients when they do so. However, a user can modify
the software and run the modified version on a network server without
releasing it. Since use of the server does not imply that people can
download a copy of the program, this means the modifications may never
be released. Many programmers choose to use the GNU GPL to cultivate
community development; if many of the modifications developed by the
programs users are never released, this can be discouraging for them.
The GNU AGPL addresses their concerns. The FSF recommends that people
consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run
over a network.
Both GPLv3 and the GNU AGPL allow developers working on a project under
one license to combine it with code released under the other. As a
result, programmers who want to use the GNU AGPL for their own work can
take advantage of the many libraries and other source files available
under GPLv3. Developers working on GPLv3-covered projects will often be
able to use modules under the GNU AGPL with minimal hassle as well,
since the GNU AGPL's additional term has no requirements for software
that doesn't interact with users over a network.
FSF board member Benjamin Mako Hill said, "The GNU GPL has been the most
successful free software license because it makes a program's source
available to its users. This enables massive collaboration between
developers, since everyone gets the same benefits from this rule. The
GNU AGPL will enable the same kind of cooperation around web services
and other networked software."
A first draft of the GNU AGPL was published on June 5, and a second
draft on August 14. The FSF heard comments on both through its web-based
feedback system. "The GNU AGPL is very much a community license," said
Peter Brown, Executive Director of the FSF. "The feedback we received
while working on GPLv3 demonstrated a clear desire for this sort of
license. And thanks to the community's help during the drafting, we're
happy that the GNU AGPL meets those needs."
The final license is published at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html.
About The Free Software Foundation
The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting
computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as
in freedom) software---particularly the GNU operating system and its
GNU/Linux variants---and free documentation for free software. The FSF
also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of
freedom in the use of software. Its Web site, located at www.fsf.org, is
an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support
the FSF's work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Its headquarters
are in Boston, MA, USA.
Media contact
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
617-542-5942 x18
brett(a)fsf.org
I've just had some bounces from addresses @fsfe.org with errors like
"550 5.1.1 <something(a)fsfe.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
unknown in local recipient table"
Do people lose their addresses @fsfe.org if they don't pay again?
If those users are non-renewers, can you please add a more meaningful
error than "User unknown in local recipient table" (maybe either "gone
away - please contact something(a)some.other.domain" or at least "user
no longer known") so that poor postmasters like me can figure out the
cause?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
list(a)akfoerster.de wrote:
> Am Monday, dem 19. Nov 2007 schrieb MJ Ray:
>
>> People should cooperate voluntarily - you can adjust the
>> balance and encourage it, but forced sharing is not true cooperation,
>> because it breaks the principle of voluntary membership.
>
> So, you are against "Copyleft" licenses in general?
> The AGPL is imho just an extended Copyleft.
>
Also, I don't really see how such a license enforces collaboration; the
license gives you the right to examine, modify and distribute your
changes, but it doesn't take away any rights you would have if the
license had not been granted.
If you don't like the terms, just examine, modify and distribute some
other software - neither the GPL nor the AGPL forces anybody to share
anything.
br
Carsten
- --
http://www.modspil.dk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHQyUiletyW1YzdSERAnNoAJ9Cqq4GkX6qKBlp4IrzaTLR5sjeQQCdH7uD
iNO+Ggo81wTzbMoY04/BZrE=
=6rQd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi all,
a few weeks ago, the FSFE together with M6-IT organised an event in
London, taking place at The Hub near Angel. The event was part of the
STACS project that we're working on and was intended to bring NGOs to
London to learn more about Free Software. Ryan Cartwright, IT manager of
Contact a Family, a UK charity for families with disabled children,
participated in the event and wrote about it on the Free Software Magazine:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/how_to_host_a_free_software_advoc…
Generally, the feeling from the event, which Ryan also writes, is that
we need to do more such events in the future, in other places in Europe,
to give more NGOs that opportunity to learn more about Free Software and
get some hands-on experience from using it.
There's some ideas about doing similar events in Berlin and Gothenburg
or Stockholm, but nothing definitely decided yet.
--
Jonas Öberg
Free Software Foundation Europe ( Join the Fellowship )
Tel. +46-31-780 21 61 Mob. +46-733 423 962 ( http://fsfe.org )
Sean Daly's interviewed the director of the BBC's division responsible for
their DRM'd iPlayer software:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171
I think this is interesting at the European level because the issues faced
by the UK's BBC will surely be faced by other countries in the next few
years.
The BBC agreed to this interview after the attention raised by Sean's
previous interview with Mark Taylor on this issue:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
There were also various petitions in the UK and I think there was a
DefectiveByDesign protest about it too.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org