Re: Licenses -- webapp users protection

[MJ Ray]

Davi Leal <address@hidden> wrote: [...]
> The current AGPLv3 draft is based on GPLv3. If you think the AGPLv3 clause 
> has 
> some problem, please add your comment on the draft so it can be fixed [1] You 
> could additionally report it at this email list.
>
>   [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html

That webapp is too buggy for me to use.  I have reported bugs against
it in the past.  They are fixed for a while, then regress.  The
software is available for download, but there is no documentation and
it is built against old versions of companion software, so I have not
yet installed a test copy.

The problems are currently being discussed again over on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ if you wish to read them.

[...]
> Using the Expact license will not solve the "untrustworthy service provider" 
> problem.

Nor will using the AGPLv3, as noted previously.  If the service
provider is untrustworthy and does not offer a way to get the data
out, everybody loses.

> What advantage would get the webapp users if the project use Expat instead 
> AGPLv3? Nothing.  Users will get just more risk to be locked in the webapp.

The main advantage is the ability to use the webapp without becoming
liable for the potentially-large source code downloads.

> One of the things the project needs is offer freedom to the webapp user: you, 
> me, ...
>
> What license guarantee more freedom to the webapp user, Expat or the current 
> AGPLv3 draft?  Obviously the AGPLv3 which force that "any modified version be 
> given to all users interacting with the webapp".

This is not at all obvious to me.  Which is more vital, the freedom to
allow casual third-party use of their own copy of the webapp, or a
compulsary offer to download the source code as run?  Well, the first
is a freedom - the compulsary offer is not a freedom at all.

[...]
> My personal opinion and proposal is:
>
>   * One member, one vote. [2]  That matches with the current
>     association Charter.
>
>       [2] http://gnuherds.org/charter#Membership
>
>   * After such base is working, moved to FSF hosts, with the
>     FSF campaign done, we will be able to begin the next phase.
>
> Please, feel free to expose you personal opinion and proposal.

I agree with the first point and I'm unsure about the second.

[...]
> Maybe we have currently different opinions about some specific points, but I 
> think we agree about the general goal.

Indeed, the general goal is good.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237