[License-discuss] Network copyleft license without requiring 'Installation Information'

[Wiebe Cazemier]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <lists.osi-license-discuss at kevin.km6g.us>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Sent: Monday, 22 May, 2023 20:33:34
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Network copyleft license without requiring 'Installation Information'

> On Sun, May 21, 2023, at 04:20, Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
>> For a network server project, I currently use the AGPLv3 because
>> network-copyleft is important to me. I never gave the Installation
>> Information requirement much thought, but now there's interest from a
>> hardware manufacturer to include the software. I have written up a
>> draft of the required AGPLv3 exception, but I'm troubled by it.
> 
> So the hardware manufacturer wants to embed the AGPLv3-licensed software,
> presumably will comply with the license terms and offer 'complete corresponding
> source' to the recipients of the hardware, but won't provide information to
> them to allow them to replace or upgrade the software installed in the
> hardware?

Yes, just like the GPLv2 allows.

And this manufacturer actually will provide the 'Installation Information', but having software which such a license precludes any deals with OEMs in the future, so manufacturers avoid software under GPL3. It's as simple as that.

> 
> That defeats a major tenet of the 'software freedom' aspects of the license.

I know, that's why I'm looking for a network copyleft license without a clause that makes my software untouchable. Free but unusable is no good.

I agree with Linus Torvalds statement on the matter. I'm not a hardware designer. You don't have to use the software. If you do, the only thing I ask for is source code back.