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

Thu Jul 11 21:54:05 UTC 2019

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:36 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you get more specific?
>

Yes.

> 1. In your hypothetical, are you talking about the traditional Microsoft
> Office (or similar)? Or are you talking about Office 365?
> 2. In your hypothetical, do "you" (the third party) directly interact with
> the software in any way, including over the web?
>

1) With software you install on your computer (Office 365 is both a web
service and a licensing program for installing software on your own
computer), you are the user of the software.  If you are interacting with
the software over an interface, you are not a user of the software but a
user of the interface.

2) Whether I interact with a human who is the user of the software (IE:
Staff at a landscaping company who installed software) or through a
computer interface (Ie: REST, SOAP, etc), I am only interacting with an
interface and not the software.

The first example I saw of this confusion was from the FSF, for example
with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html

The author of that document and underlying policy, whether through mistake
or deliberately, caused confusion between a user of software and a user of
an interface. The phrase "and let other users communicate with it there" is
clearly talking about interfaces, and yet the word "user" is used as if it
is the same type of user which is discussed previously in documents from
the FSF (user being users of software, extremely different than users of
interfaces).

It had always been the case that software users could provide commercial
services to third parties.  Clients would provide those companies data,
which the company would process and provide the client with results.
 Somehow people's minds went crazy when we moved from that data being
provided on paper or removable media to being over a communications
interface.   Someone providing data to a company on paper or USB stick is
"good", but providing data to a company via the web is "bad".

I see this counterproductive fear of the internet in many places.  Within
Canadian copyright discussions I often hear fear of the internet as being
the source of author support of DRM.  I try to explain that DRM
(anti-interoperability encryption on content, non-owner digital locks on
devices) only transfers control over the use of technology from fans of
their work to technology companies, and thus it is counterproductive to
them.  Fear still wins the day for a large percentage of creative
industries, but this is slowly changing.

Assuming for a moment that your answers are 1) O365, and 2) You (the third
> party) *does* interact in some way with the software, such as by
> interacting with it online, I believe you are mistaken. Microsoft, for
> example, would consider you, the non-adminstrator third party accessing the
> website, to be a user.
>

They would consider me a user of their web services, not a user of their
software.  While I realise you are conflating these two different types of
users, it is a critical distinction for this area of policy whether you are
a user of the software or a user of the interface.   One is an activity
that should be regulated by a software license agreement, while the other
is not.

What someone is a "user" of matters.  Not all "users" should join Narcotics
Anonymous (NA).

But who cares about Microsoft? They make their living off proprietary
> software. How about the FSF and SFLC?
>

As noted above, the FSF went off the deep end with the acceptance of the
Affero license clauses. Until they abandon this dangerous legal theory
where they believe software authors should have the right to dictate terms
for interfaces, they can not be trusted to have the best interests of FLOSS
in mind.

Bradley M. Kuhn is the primary person behind the perspective presented by
both the FSF and the SFLC, so on this particular policy question I can
simply state that I and others strongly disagree with Mr. Kuhn on whether
this massive expansion of the exclusive rights of software exclusive rights
holders to interfaces is good or bad for software user

Part of my FLOSS policy work within Canada is to ensure that interfaces are
not offered exclusive rights, meaning that part of my work is to render the
Affero clauses of the AGPL unenforceable (at least within Canada).

My hope is that participants in OSI forums will recognise the trap that Mr.
Kuhn has set, and be a voice of reason in abandoning and hopefully
intervening in policy against this legal theory.

In case curious, I wrote about one of my discussions with Mr. Kuhn in 2008.
https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/the-gnu-affero-general-public-license-and-drm/57771

Thus, it seems that you (among others) are making a strong statement that
> non-administrators are not "users" for purposes of open source or free
> software, and that considering them as such is contrary to everything FOSS
> stands for.
>

You are using your own language to describe the distinction, which suggests
a different meaning.  I can rephrase as:

Individuals/groups who only interact with software through interfaces are
not users of the software for the purposes of software freedom. Allowing
exclusive rights holders for software to control interactions through
interfaces is contrary to everything FLOSS stands for.

(BTW: Outside of uni-lingual countries the L for Libre is usually included
for FLOSS)

> But by my reading, this assertion appears to be inconsistent with the
> stated views and actions of many of the principals of the FSF and SFLC.
>

Many? There are likely more people associated with the OSI who recognise
the harm of extending software exclusive rights to interface as those who
haven't yet recognised the harm who have been convinced by Mr. Kuhn.

Can you explain the inconsistency, or how I am getting this wrong?
>

You didn't get it wrong.  I believe Mr. Kuhn and those who he has convinced
to adopt this counterproductive legal theory have got it wrong.

My goal in participating in this discussion is to do my part to ensure we
all eventually get this critically important policy question right.

There are many personalities in this community, and they don't always agree.
https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2018/01/sflc-sfc.html

-- 
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/20190711/409f36a0/attachment.html>