Re: Licenses -- webapp users protection

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
>
> > If you think the AGPLv3 clause has some problem, [...]
> > You could additionally report it at this email list. 

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

Reading the email thread at [1], Anthony Towns wrote at [2]:

    "So, does this group think the ASP loophole is worth closing, [...] ?"

We are talking about user's freedom.  IMHO it must be closed because such ASP 
loophole can be used to take away user's freedom.

 [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00045.html
 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00380.html

I have subscribed to debian-legal. Thanks MJ!


> > 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.

AGPLv3 solves the software part not the data part.
Expact does not solve neither the software part nor the data part.

Fortunately, talking about the GNU Herds case, we (the users) are controlling 
and managing both the project development and the service hosting. So we (the 
users) control the GNU Herds hosted data too.


> > 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.

You are not forced to offer the download link if you have not modified the 
source code. Read again [3].

 [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnuherds-app-dev/2007-11/msg00070.html

In the case you modify the source, you can link the download to a repository 
hosted at Savannah, so you do not suffer any inconvenience.  If your webapp 
is Free Software you will not have any trouble to get repository hosting at 
Savannah.


> > 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.

It is obvious to me.  AGPLv3 gives more freedom to webapp _users_ than Expat 
due to AGPLv3 avoids locking by software-control (the ASP loophole).

>                                   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.

Some remarks:

  a) Third-party use is not forbidden by AGPLv3. AGPLv3 just adds
     conditions to avoid the ASP loophole and so keep the user's freedom.

  b) AGPLv3 does not force a "compulsory offer to download the
     source code".  The download is only forced if such source
     code is modified and you have such software with remote users.

  c) Third-party using their locked copy of the webapp and 
     forbiding to their users know about what such webapp
     is actually doing with personal data is not user freedom.


> > 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.

About the second point:

  * gnuherds.org is already hosted at FSF servers.

  * Unfortunately I think the FSF will do not carry out any
    campaign in favor of GNU Herds.


> > 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.