Conversation

Notices

1. Eugen 🎄 (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 21-Sep-2016 15:44:45 UTC Eugen 🎄

   • Constance Variable

   @lambadalambda I think of Google Talk, Facebook Chat and WhatsApp and XMPP, but the problem with those wasn't that the companies extended the functionality and/or made profit off of it, the problem was that they disabled the federation features. If there is a license that prevents exactly that, I'd be all over it.

   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) (clackemovedtoheldscalla@quitter.se)'s status on Wednesday, 21-Sep-2016 16:08:36 UTC Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)

     in reply to

     • Constance Variable
     @gargron @lambadalambda Restricting what can be removed would trample freedoms 2 and 3. The AGPL carefully makes freedom 0 conditional.
   • Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2016 01:36:38 UTC Mike Gerwitz

     in reply to

     • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)
     @clacke Freedom 0 isn't any different under the AGPL (than the GPL) because the software itself isn't being distributed---the users running it on their own servers have Freedom 0 completely (and all the others). The AGPL is just a tool to help with getting modifications of such software liberated and distributed, where they otherwise wouldn't.
     
     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) (clackemovedtoheldscalla@quitter.se)'s status on Thursday, 22-Sep-2016 06:19:31 UTC Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)

     in reply to

     • Mike Gerwitz
     @mikegerwitz If you run the software and deny your users the source, you are violating the AGPL. In the GPL, freedom 0 is unconditional.
   • Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 23-Sep-2016 03:38:08 UTC Mike Gerwitz

     in reply to

     • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)
     @clacke The AGPL only applies to modified works; otherwise, there is no requirement to make the source code available. In the above link:
     
     "It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there"
     
     That text didn't used to contain the word "modified" ~1y ago; it was a source of confusion that I clarified with rms and he subsequently corrected. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense.
     
     The AGPL is a superset of the GPL.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) (clackemovedtoheldscalla@quitter.se)'s status on Friday, 23-Sep-2016 15:47:43 UTC Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)

     in reply to

     • Mike Gerwitz
     @mikegerwitz I stand corrected! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section9 makes it clear.
     
     So, freedom 0 for modded work.