On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 17:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Under AGPL this kind of use is considered distribution or conveyance.
But is it considered so under copyright law?
Believe it or not it is hard to tell for me. For example you should first say "which" copyright law :-) And even then I am sure the language is so vague it needs judicial interpretation.
No, but I can (and do claim) that what many license adaptors have considered "user" to mean does not include users of services provided by the software. Mostly because they never considered it before.
I am not sure about that, but you probably know more than me about "web apps". I'll just notice that many web sites not connected to free software tend to have "use terms, or use conditions" so I think it is understood that users of web services are indeed "users".
It really depends on what you consider distribution.
It really depends on what the enforcers of copyright law in a particular jurisdiction consider distribution.
Yeah, very difficult to say, and that's what I meant with "you".
Is this based on copyright permissions required to "install" the software? Or does 13 affect non-distributing service providers?
Copyright law is not clear enough and is too old to clearly define distribution in the digital age.
and, the same for the word "user" I feel.
Definitely, in US law the term "use" is often so vague.
The answer is not simple at all, AGPL has one answer, GPL has the other one, that's why it make sense they both exist.
and this is why it also looks like (to so many) that the FSF may be changing core values, because they came down on the wrong side of a difficult and complex question.
"changing core values" depends on what you think they are, I don't think they are changing anything.
Once this is accepted, whether you like AGPL or not, then the matter is: is it so bad that GPLv3 can be used by such projects?
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
I believe the license already mean what you would like it to be, I asked for advice, we will se what the FSF thinks.
I think that in an FSF mailing list it is very important to consider how probable it is that a license will be accepted.
Yes, how probable you think it is AGPL will be accepted and used?
Now a good question (imo of course) is this: what would FSF think of a GPLv3 license where the author indicates that the AGPL clause is evicted? Would that license be still compatible with normal GPLv3 software? Would that make it more acceptable to you?
I think I'll pick this up in your answer to "pleasant solution", and thanks for being pleasant.
I feel like you in many respects except I don't think the main purpose of the FSF is to subvert the Free Software core values, but to protect them against new threats and preserve them in new environments :-)
Simo.