Jump to content

Talk:Affero General Public License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Software Controversy ?

[edit]

Should there not be any discussion on this page to indicate that there is some controversy over whether this license is considered free software? If you search the net, you will find that many do not consider it free. Some samples: [1], [2], [3]

CorenSearchBot is wrong

[edit]

The CorenSearchBot is wrong. I have not copied contents from http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html. I have copied it from the GNU Lesser General Public License page, which is part of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPetazzoni (talk • contribs) Nov 19, 2007 18:31

new page GNU Affero General Public License

[edit]
Resolved

I've started a page called GNU Affero General Public License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasPetazzoni (talk • contribs) Nov 20, 2007 02:34

Two pages for Affero license?

[edit]
Resolved
 – This discussion concluded to a merge to this article, which was reverted. After some time, another merge was suggested on the GNU Affero General Public License talk page, which has not been implemented. --Kissaki (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure why we have separate pages for the old AGPL and the new AGPLv3 that was recently released by the FSF. We should figure out if we want to merge them. I am not completely sure myself how to start that process, but I wanted to mention it here. -- bkuhn 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done

[edit]

I did the merge. I left the other newer article, the REDIRECT. Lentower (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the GNU Affero General Public License 3.0 Preamble’s penultimate paragraph, and revert the merge. --AVRS (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood this before I did the merge. The distinction is not notable, so two articles are not needed. It is far better for Wikipedia and it's readers, for there to be one article that explains the evolution of the concept, and the evolution of the license(s). We're an encylopedia, not a legal glossary. There are many editors who would propose making this merged article, a section of the GPL article, for the same reasons. Work on making the merged article, the best WP article it can be. Lentower (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should still be called “GNU Affero General Public License”, because that’s what it describes, and that is what seems to be more notable now. --AVRS (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page for the other article that is now a REDIRECT for why i did the merge this way. The merged article is findable by both titles, describes both licenses. Perhaps the descriptions can be improved. Few but a lawyer or a GNU partisian will see a meaningful or WPnotable difference between them. Lentower (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Article

[edit]

This is a fantastic article and one of the best resources on the AGPL available. Thanks to everyone who has helped contribute to this! —mako๛ 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGPL vs GNU AGPL - same or not?

[edit]
Resolved
 – One commenter said they improved the article in 2015. Today, the two articles have been merged. --Kissaki (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

«Note that GNU Affero General Public License is not the same legal document as the Affero General Public License, though they are quite similar in intent and effect.»

Either that is wrong, or the whole article needs to be rewritten. The page is titled "AGPL", the heading section is all about "GNU AGPL" but ends with the mentioned sentence, and the remainder of the article seems to say both are the same. If someone could clear it up and correct it... thanks. ;) --portugal (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the AGPL is essentially being replaced by the GNU AGPL, seeing as how Affero has updated their AGPL precisely to make it compatible with the GNU AGPL. The title probably should be renamed to GNU Affero General Public License. MahangaTalk 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very confusingly-written article. I have made some changes designed to clear up some of the confusion between the old AGPL and the FSF's GNU AGPLv3 published in 2007. Much more work is needed here. Rfontana (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made a number of changes to this article to make it clearer and less confusing. Rfontana (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "GNU" in the first sentence. The original AGPL did not have "GNU" in its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfontana (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

[edit]
Resolved

Sorry, Rfont, this is still confusing as hell. The intro realllly needs a simple summary of what it is. The fact that the FSF suggests people use it isn't nearly enough. I'm trying to use this in some software..but I'm not really sure why. Miserlou (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Application service provider loophole." Que??! Miserlou (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AGPL v1 is not GNU. The AGPL v2 is for compatibility to GNU AGPL v3. The AGPL v3 is GNU. AGPLv1 was published by Affero. The AGPLv3 was published by GNU. - The articles have been merged now. Please check if you still find it confusing. Kissaki (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loophole

[edit]
Resolved

If nobody is sure what the loophole is, how could they have a licence exist to stop it? --99.250.177.248 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this has been resolved through better text by now? Kissaki (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-in download source vs. Opt-out

[edit]

Technically speaking, version 1 sounds like it forbids opting-out of having a "download source" link:

if...user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version

But version 3 sounds like it actually forces one to actively program a "download source" link, if one doesn't already exist:

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

Is it really so? Does it mean v3 users - if their modifications include network interaction - aren't allowed to use the linkless original source as-is? Must they build a whole sub-program to present the source? Again, I'm only talking about programs that don't have such a link to begin with. -79.176.200.211 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGPL2

[edit]

The table should be expanded to include the transitional license. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example of web applications under AGPL

[edit]
Resolved

This list is a Bad Idea. I hesitate to delete it all since it might include notable examples of AGPL software, but this ever growing list need to be addressed soon. Belorn (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote it in same style as Free_software#Examples_of_free_software. Belorn (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]
Resolved

The note at the top is wrong. It says AGPL redirects to this article, but it doesn't. Looks like that page was speedied last month. Ntsimp (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opa description - wrong or outdated

[edit]
Resolved
 – I can't find a reference to Opa in the current article content. --Kissaki (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Opa's standard library license is wrong or outdated. From the Opa FAQ: "The Opa Compiler which is licensed with the Affero GPL and the Opa Standard Library which is licensed with the MIT License. As a result, you can use Opa to build any application you want, either open source or proprietary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.206.149.138 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference section

[edit]

Would be useful to compare/contrast AGPL vs normal GPL 12.167.60.2 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Database AGPL (and possibly schema) with/without AGPL webserver, and system exception

[edit]

The MongoDB database is under AGP: "The goal of the server license is to require that enhancements to MongoDB be released to the community. Traditional GPL often does not achieve this anymore as a huge amount of software runs in the cloud. For example, Google has no obligation to release their improvements to the MySQL kernel – if they do they are being nice.

To make the above practical, we promise that your client application which uses the database is a separate work. To facilitate this, the mongodb.org supported drivers (the part you link with your application) are released under Apache license, which is copyleft free."

I assumed the AGPL would only apply to the networked software in a restricted sense (but not sure any more), like the web-application. You usually would not have the database, MongoDB or otherwise, accessible to the Internet.

Let's assume the web application itself is not under AGPL. Then it needs not provide the source code for it. However the less likely software to be changed, MongoDB, still has to provide source if changed (and only then it seems)? The GPL, and copyright in general works for derived software, and it is delimited on a process boundary. If the same applies to AGPL as for the GPL then it would not fully close the "network loophole". Would you have to provide the source (then changed) to that process or all that it might use directly or indirectly? I guess not. If however you need to provide source for processes used by a changed APGL software, where would it end?

Let's say the web application is under AGPL, then the source code for it but also the database schema (not the data nor the database source code) would have to be provided? PHP and Apache, if changed? Would not fall under a "system exception"? comp.arch (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are not the best place to ask for legal advice, and your are much more likely to get a better reply by asking stackoverflow. That said... AGPL is a relative new license. This mean that legal praxis is not yet built, so a judge would ask what was the intention of the MongoDB authors in picking the license. The judge would also look at how the accused infringer used the software, and reason if the usage intentionally tries to circumvent the authors wishes. So in the case of mongodb, the authors has made their intention public. they say: "To say this another way: if you modify the core database source code, the goal is that you have to contribute those modifications back to the community. Note however that it is NOT required that applications using mongo be published. The copyleft applies only to the mongod and mongos database programs.". Belorn (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. I just wandered what would happen in the general case where the software is only indirectly accessible over the Internet. I made it look as the web application is the first software, but that is of course no the case. There is the TCP/IP stack, probably Apache, PHP. (Could be some terminal server software/X Windows in between.) If the drivers for MongoDB would have used AGPL it would apply to all the web application probably (and possibly even without if not specifically not indicated otherwise as they do). comp.arch (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Affero General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affero_General_Public_License&oldid=1210388470"