Hoping to find a compliant alternative to the AGPL

[Gregor Richards]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:21:18 -0400, "John.Cowan"
<jcowan at reutershealth.com> said:
> Gregor Richards scripsit:
> 
> > The main issue being brought up on debian-legal is "the dissident test",
> > which seems like it would apply to the OSD as well.  I'm not entirely
> > convinced that the dissident test fails with this.  Any opinions are
> > greatly appreciated.
> 
> <flame>The debian-legal "tests" are the products of insane
> over-interpretation.  It's easy to see, for example, that the GNU GPL
> fails the Tentacles of Evil test: since no contract is formed between
> licensor and licensee (at least in common-law countries), the licensor
> can revoke it with notice at any time, and the licensee is then on the
> slippery ground of promissory estoppel -- which will surely not save
> anyone who is not already a licensee.
> 
> The description of the Dissident test is equally absurd: the case given
> in the draft DFSG FAQ specifies someone who does not wish to reveal
> his modifications, but is perfectly all right with revealing them to
> people he sends the binary to.  That is not even remotely plausible
> in the Real World: if merely revealing the modifications is dangerous,
> then GNU GPLed software is effectively unfree.
> 
> Any definition of free software that excludes GPLed software is
> broken.</flame>
> 
> >   4. If you provide to a person or persons a means of accessing an
> > interactive interface to the Program which does not include access to
> > the source code, object code or executable, you must also provide to
> > that person or those persons (henceforth called "Indirect Users") access
> > to the complete source code of the Program in one of the following ways:
> > 
> >     a) Cause the Program to provide its source code in said interactive
> >     interface upon the request of an Indirect User; or,
> > 
> >     b) Make a means of immediate retrieval of the Program's source code
> >     easily visible to all Indirect Users; or,
> > 
> >     c) Provide a written offer, easily visible to all Indirect Users and
> >     valid for at least three years, to give to any third party, for a
> >     charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
> >     distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
> >     source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
> >     above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
> 
> I think this is pretty good.
> 
> -- 
> The first thing you learn in a lawin' family    John Cowan
> is that there ain't no definite answers         jcowan at reutershealth.com
> to anything.  --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird


Humm...

What is your opinion (and anyone else's) of Affero's 2(d) as compared to
my propsed clause?

(For your reference, here it is:)
 * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
 users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
 any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
 request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source
 code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of
 the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent
 opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a
 computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the
 complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.


My three issues with it are:
1) It's technology-specific.  For one, it could run in some very similar
situation that's not on a "computer network", and for two, it really
shouldn't require HTTP in particular.
2) (Probably less of a problem).  It says "If the Program as you
received it ... if, in the version you received ..."  Therefore, you
could circumvent the license like so:
  1) A makes a web program (let's use PHPMyAdmin as an example, if it
  was under this license).
  2) B gets the source from A.  B turns it into a non-web-based program
  (a GTK+ version).
     - Note that, because the license requires souce access if the
     version /as you received it/ is intended to work on a network, B
     had to retain the source downoading capability.
  3) C gets the source from B.  C makes some improvements, and, since
  the version /as he received it/ was not intended to work on a network,
  removes the source downloading function, fully legally.
  4) D gets the source from C.  The version C made has improvements over
  the original, web-based, PHPMyAdmin, and D is eager to make a
  web-based version with those improvements.  He makes the modifications
  to C's code /without using A's code/.  Because the version /as he
  received it/ is not networked, he is in no way obligated to provide a
  source downloading function!
  (that example might be a bit too insane, but ... well, people are
  evil)
3) (Also probably less of a problem).  "Request".  Well, I can request
to Micrsoft that they send me the complete source code to Windows.  Will
they?  Somehow I think not.  But I have the right to /request/ it. 
Interpreted by a judge, this argument is bull**** though :)

Any opinions are greatly appreciated :)

 - Gregor Richards
-- 
  Gregor Richards
  grichards at ml1.net

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow