[License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

[Russell McOrmond]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> So on your views, then, a person who has an AGPLed program on their own
> computer has a right to the source (because they are "users"), whereas a
> person who runs that same program on a remote server owned by someone else
> has no such rights (because they are not "users" because they don't control
> the remote server).  I find that difficult to swallow.
>


If I am a user of landscaping services, and the company providing that
landscaping service happens to use Microsoft Office, I am not through some
transitive property a user of Microsoft Office.

If you are making use of the services provided by software that someone
else is running on their computer, you are not a user of the software
through some transitive property.  You are a user of the services of the
entity running the software.


How is your hypothetical person who "runs that same program on a remote
server" doing so if they aren't the person who controls that computer?
Were you suggesting I was making a distinction between ownership of a
physical computer vs rental of physical or virtual machines?  That is why I
said controls the computer, potentially different than own.

If you are suggesting that when someone accesses a website or uses an API
over a network link that they are running a program, then we disagree about
the terminology.   As someone accessing a website I am no more running
software as I would be running Microsoft Office by hiring landscaping
services.




The extension of copyright-ish exclusive rights from copying/communication
to the mere use of interfaces (as the AGPL proposes) is extremely
dangerous, and if this concept is allowed to exist will enable developers
and service providers to disallow FLOSS implementations of interfaces.
When you want to demand of software users (those running the software on a
computer) conditions that extend beyond an interface to a third party (who
is never sent or is ever executing the software), you are proposing a
massive extension of exclusive rights to and through interfaces.

If we were lobbying government to regulate specific entities to ensure
accountability and transparency (lets start with mandating all software
used for automating government policy be FLOSS, something I've been
lobbying the Canadian government for decades on), then I would be 100%
onside. Since we are talking about extending the exclusive rights of
software authors to and past interfaces, then I am strongly opposed.

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190709/c21b9e18/attachment-0001.html>