Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?
Applying a function to a nested list
Is this homebrew race based on the Draco Volans lizard species balanced?
Can commander tax be proliferated?
How did Arya manage to disguise herself?
How long can a 35mm film be used/stored before it starts to lose its quality after expiry?
Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills
Who died in the Game of Thrones episode, "The Long Night"?
What was the state of the German rail system in 1944?
When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?
Stark VS Thanos
Would "lab meat" be able to feed a much larger global population
Transfer over $10k
Visa for volunteering in England
Password expiration with Password manager
How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?
Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?
Pigeonhole Principle Problem
What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?
Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder
Why do computer-science majors learn calculus?
Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?
Floor tile layout process?
I’ve officially counted to infinity!
How to efficiently calculate prefix sum of frequencies of characters in a string?
Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public?
Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?
So my understanding of the AGPL, is that it requires modifications to be distributed to the users of the network service, but I'm looking for a licence that would require any modifications (non-internal) to be public rather than be limited to the users. Are there any licences that would support this.
So an example use case is, let's say Company A takes my program/source code (let's say it's a webapp) under AGPL and makes modifications to it that significantly improve performance. Company A charges it's users $1000/month to use it, following the AGPL by distributing the source code to it's users but only it's users. It's users would likely not be technically-literate so wouldn't really be inclined to publish that source code, so what I'd want is for the company to not just distribute the source code to the users but make it publicly available for everyone or contribute it through github.
Also asked asked on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/39329/are-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p before being alerted to crossposting etiquette.
gpl agpl-3.0 copyleft
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
add a comment |
So my understanding of the AGPL, is that it requires modifications to be distributed to the users of the network service, but I'm looking for a licence that would require any modifications (non-internal) to be public rather than be limited to the users. Are there any licences that would support this.
So an example use case is, let's say Company A takes my program/source code (let's say it's a webapp) under AGPL and makes modifications to it that significantly improve performance. Company A charges it's users $1000/month to use it, following the AGPL by distributing the source code to it's users but only it's users. It's users would likely not be technically-literate so wouldn't really be inclined to publish that source code, so what I'd want is for the company to not just distribute the source code to the users but make it publicly available for everyone or contribute it through github.
Also asked asked on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/39329/are-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p before being alerted to crossposting etiquette.
gpl agpl-3.0 copyleft
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
1
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14
add a comment |
So my understanding of the AGPL, is that it requires modifications to be distributed to the users of the network service, but I'm looking for a licence that would require any modifications (non-internal) to be public rather than be limited to the users. Are there any licences that would support this.
So an example use case is, let's say Company A takes my program/source code (let's say it's a webapp) under AGPL and makes modifications to it that significantly improve performance. Company A charges it's users $1000/month to use it, following the AGPL by distributing the source code to it's users but only it's users. It's users would likely not be technically-literate so wouldn't really be inclined to publish that source code, so what I'd want is for the company to not just distribute the source code to the users but make it publicly available for everyone or contribute it through github.
Also asked asked on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/39329/are-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p before being alerted to crossposting etiquette.
gpl agpl-3.0 copyleft
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
So my understanding of the AGPL, is that it requires modifications to be distributed to the users of the network service, but I'm looking for a licence that would require any modifications (non-internal) to be public rather than be limited to the users. Are there any licences that would support this.
So an example use case is, let's say Company A takes my program/source code (let's say it's a webapp) under AGPL and makes modifications to it that significantly improve performance. Company A charges it's users $1000/month to use it, following the AGPL by distributing the source code to it's users but only it's users. It's users would likely not be technically-literate so wouldn't really be inclined to publish that source code, so what I'd want is for the company to not just distribute the source code to the users but make it publicly available for everyone or contribute it through github.
Also asked asked on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/39329/are-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p before being alerted to crossposting etiquette.
gpl agpl-3.0 copyleft
gpl agpl-3.0 copyleft
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
edited Apr 22 at 14:26
smw
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
asked Apr 22 at 11:58
smwsmw
193
193
1
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14
add a comment |
1
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14
1
1
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI.
Key problems of forced-publication licenses:
Contributors are copyright holders as well. Copyright includes the right to decide whether to publish at all. Forcing publication under a particular license would effectively dispossess the contributors.
It extremely easy to accidentally become noncompliant with such a license, e.g. if I fiddle with a local copy of the software and forget to publish it at once. The open source community generally wants people to comply with the license for the good of all, not to trick them into license violations.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (a precursor to the Open Source Definition) have gathered a lot of wisdom around them, such as the Desert Island Test:
Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.
Of course, license compliance would be the last concern for a desert island castaway. But such thought experiments are useful at finding out how a well-meaning license term can actually hurt legitimate users.
Note that if a company were to lock access to AGPL software behind such sums (which in itself is legal), I wouldn't be surprised if license enforcement foundations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy would help exercising the right to receive the source code, or if competitors of the company were to help free the AGPL modifications out of spite: what are a few thousand dollars compared to ruining their competitive advantage?
The company using the AGPL software is very limited in how they can control user's access to the source code. Their primary defense would be to not take on clients at all. This makes it very very difficult for a company to charge for access to open source software rather than for services or hosting.
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
|
show 8 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8219%2fare-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI.
Key problems of forced-publication licenses:
Contributors are copyright holders as well. Copyright includes the right to decide whether to publish at all. Forcing publication under a particular license would effectively dispossess the contributors.
It extremely easy to accidentally become noncompliant with such a license, e.g. if I fiddle with a local copy of the software and forget to publish it at once. The open source community generally wants people to comply with the license for the good of all, not to trick them into license violations.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (a precursor to the Open Source Definition) have gathered a lot of wisdom around them, such as the Desert Island Test:
Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.
Of course, license compliance would be the last concern for a desert island castaway. But such thought experiments are useful at finding out how a well-meaning license term can actually hurt legitimate users.
Note that if a company were to lock access to AGPL software behind such sums (which in itself is legal), I wouldn't be surprised if license enforcement foundations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy would help exercising the right to receive the source code, or if competitors of the company were to help free the AGPL modifications out of spite: what are a few thousand dollars compared to ruining their competitive advantage?
The company using the AGPL software is very limited in how they can control user's access to the source code. Their primary defense would be to not take on clients at all. This makes it very very difficult for a company to charge for access to open source software rather than for services or hosting.
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
|
show 8 more comments
There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI.
Key problems of forced-publication licenses:
Contributors are copyright holders as well. Copyright includes the right to decide whether to publish at all. Forcing publication under a particular license would effectively dispossess the contributors.
It extremely easy to accidentally become noncompliant with such a license, e.g. if I fiddle with a local copy of the software and forget to publish it at once. The open source community generally wants people to comply with the license for the good of all, not to trick them into license violations.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (a precursor to the Open Source Definition) have gathered a lot of wisdom around them, such as the Desert Island Test:
Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.
Of course, license compliance would be the last concern for a desert island castaway. But such thought experiments are useful at finding out how a well-meaning license term can actually hurt legitimate users.
Note that if a company were to lock access to AGPL software behind such sums (which in itself is legal), I wouldn't be surprised if license enforcement foundations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy would help exercising the right to receive the source code, or if competitors of the company were to help free the AGPL modifications out of spite: what are a few thousand dollars compared to ruining their competitive advantage?
The company using the AGPL software is very limited in how they can control user's access to the source code. Their primary defense would be to not take on clients at all. This makes it very very difficult for a company to charge for access to open source software rather than for services or hosting.
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
|
show 8 more comments
There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI.
Key problems of forced-publication licenses:
Contributors are copyright holders as well. Copyright includes the right to decide whether to publish at all. Forcing publication under a particular license would effectively dispossess the contributors.
It extremely easy to accidentally become noncompliant with such a license, e.g. if I fiddle with a local copy of the software and forget to publish it at once. The open source community generally wants people to comply with the license for the good of all, not to trick them into license violations.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (a precursor to the Open Source Definition) have gathered a lot of wisdom around them, such as the Desert Island Test:
Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.
Of course, license compliance would be the last concern for a desert island castaway. But such thought experiments are useful at finding out how a well-meaning license term can actually hurt legitimate users.
Note that if a company were to lock access to AGPL software behind such sums (which in itself is legal), I wouldn't be surprised if license enforcement foundations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy would help exercising the right to receive the source code, or if competitors of the company were to help free the AGPL modifications out of spite: what are a few thousand dollars compared to ruining their competitive advantage?
The company using the AGPL software is very limited in how they can control user's access to the source code. Their primary defense would be to not take on clients at all. This makes it very very difficult for a company to charge for access to open source software rather than for services or hosting.
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI.
Key problems of forced-publication licenses:
Contributors are copyright holders as well. Copyright includes the right to decide whether to publish at all. Forcing publication under a particular license would effectively dispossess the contributors.
It extremely easy to accidentally become noncompliant with such a license, e.g. if I fiddle with a local copy of the software and forget to publish it at once. The open source community generally wants people to comply with the license for the good of all, not to trick them into license violations.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines (a precursor to the Open Source Definition) have gathered a lot of wisdom around them, such as the Desert Island Test:
Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.
Of course, license compliance would be the last concern for a desert island castaway. But such thought experiments are useful at finding out how a well-meaning license term can actually hurt legitimate users.
Note that if a company were to lock access to AGPL software behind such sums (which in itself is legal), I wouldn't be surprised if license enforcement foundations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy would help exercising the right to receive the source code, or if competitors of the company were to help free the AGPL modifications out of spite: what are a few thousand dollars compared to ruining their competitive advantage?
The company using the AGPL software is very limited in how they can control user's access to the source code. Their primary defense would be to not take on clients at all. This makes it very very difficult for a company to charge for access to open source software rather than for services or hosting.
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
answered Apr 22 at 13:41
amonamon
13.3k11536
13.3k11536
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
|
show 8 more comments
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
1
1
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
So what I'd want is essentially an AGPL licence (which is what Mongo used to be licensed under) except changing section 13, " if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to "must prominently offer all users and non-users"
– smw
Apr 22 at 13:59
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
the AGPL already has an exemption for internal-use which is perfectly fine, I'd just want a licence that would require companies with external users to make the source code available to users and non-users.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:02
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
section 13 is for user network interaction which would essentially imply an internet connection, so if it's used on a desert island section 13 wouldn't apply and it would be regular GPL (the AGPL is essentially GPL + the network interaction clause)
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:04
3
3
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
If the "desert island" had a network infrastructure, this concern could still arise, if residents on the island exchange software. (A desert island is a stand-in for, e.g., a nation state with restrictive nation firewall, or a developing nation with low -- but not necessarily nonexistent -- development levels)
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 14:27
2
2
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
@Smart455 I wouldn't go that far to claim that such a license would be “totalitarian”, but think that OP's license could be written and still be free and open source. However, doing that is walking a very fine line and is extremely difficult. One route I could imagine would be to take an AGPL-ish license but change how the source may be provided: either the user always receives the source directly, or the the provider must somehow publicly offer the source to download with no restrictions or costs. Where “somehow publicly” is the tricky part.
– amon
Apr 22 at 15:33
|
show 8 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8219%2fare-there-any-agpl-style-licences-that-require-source-code-modifications-to-be-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Possibly a duplicate of Force derivative works to be public
– apsillers♦
Apr 22 at 13:39
@apsillers it's a bit different since I don't want to force derivative works to be public if it's internal use, only if it's distributed (which the GPL and AGPL already apply) or if the company provides access to the software through a webserver to external users (i.e. through the internet) then they'd have to share the code with non-users and users alike.
– smw
Apr 22 at 14:14