[Koha-devel] [Koha] Proposal To Switch Koha's License to GPLv3 and AGPLv3 or AGPLv3

[MJ Ray]

(Koha main list dropped from cc)

Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger at foundations.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM, MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Secondly, this leads to another of what I think is still one of the
> > Great Unknowns of AGPLv3: if you don't host the source alongside, must
> > the app go offline if it thinks the source has gone offline?
>
> Where in the license does it say anything about hosting source
> alongside the application?

Nowhere, but it does say "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".  If the source has gone offline, there is no
opportunity to receive it, is there?

> > There are so many of these lawyerbombs around AGPLv3 that I feel the
> > whole thing is best avoided by sticking with GPLv2, at least until
> > others have trod on some of the big ones, in the absence of any
> > pressing need to switch.
>
> GPLvX was virtually untested in court until Progress Software Corp. v.
> MySQL began back in 2002. Apparently that line of reasoning did not
> stop the originators of Koha from selecting GPLv2+ when they released
> it in 2000.

There are very few bits of language in GPLv2 which are anything like as
vague and confusing as the AGPLv3 clause.

[...]
> > I don't see how that's true, unless "cooperation of some sort" means
> > something other than cooperation, such as mere trading.
> > Free software licensing is usually just setting out the terms of trade,
> > but AGPLv3's clod-handed attempts to force public sharing go beyond it.
>
> View it how you will. In the case you propose, we are simply
> establishing an additional clarification to the terms of trade. The
> intent of GPL licenses is to preserve the open nature of code released
> as free and open source. Not only is it the right of the receiver to
> have access to the code, etc. but it is also the right of the author
> to have their intent that the code be free and open respected. The
> terms of the trade are such that in return for the right to use, etc.
> this code, you agree to release any changes you make to said parties.

Forced publication was never part of the free and open nature before.
That is not a clarification.  It's a fundamental shift between user
freedoms and author freedoms, driven by a reactionary approach to
unfriendly users who lend their computing resources to others.

> As I pointed out previously: All licensing agreements "force" some
> points. Just violate one and see how quickly it is en-forced. (Pun
> intended.)

It's actually quite rare.  When it does happen, it is painful, as I
discovered to my cost in a past job, but it is still rare.

> It actually seems to me that the matter of not forcing cooperation is
> in contradiction to the expressed desire to force cooperation in the
> matter of trademarks, etc. by de-listing, etc. Cooperation is, after
> all, cooperation.

Trademarks are not copyright and trying to treat them exactly the same
will lead to some very unhealthy conclusions.  We can look for the same
freedoms (use, adapt, study and share) but in different ways.

Also, I'm pretty sure I've never expressed any desire to force
cooperation.

[...]
> > So what is the burning desire for AGPLv3?
> [...] It is
> not a panacea for all ills, only another hopeful obstacle in the path
> of misbehavior.

This community has so far been relatively unwilling to activate the
obstacles it already has placed in that path.  Another one will only
serve to deter and scare its friends further, because the only people
who heed the obstacles are those who respect its wishes.

Furthermore, this isn't even an obstacle in the path of the bad hosters:
"One problem which the GNU Affero GPL does not address is the problem
of Software as a Service (SaaS). It is impossible, as far as we know,
to address this problem with a software license." --
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

> > > > So may we postpone the rest of this discussion to post-3.2.0?
> > >
> > > As I stated in my original proposal: We are already very active atm, and now is
> > > the time to at least begin discussing this change.
> >
> > I am disappointed by this desire to press ahead with holding a
> > discussion of such a complex topic at such a busy time.  It will limit
> > participation and likely leave the discussion incomplete.
>
> Participation will only be limited if we want it to. No one involved
> in this project is not busy. If we believe that we have a good thing
> going in Koha, we must make the time to do the not so nice parts of
> the project too.

There is no point adding not so nice parts that bring no benefit
unless you think this is an S+M community or something.  Instead,
let's find ways to make Koha more fun and more general!

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op