AGPL != Awesome GPL | Hacker News Reader

AGPL != Awesome GPL

davispj.com

11 pointsjchrisa29 comments

There's an FSF FAQ on this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

It seems they're mostly trying to avoid a license-dilution problem, where there'd be 50 incompatible versions of the GPL floating around confusing everyone.

FTA: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

This is clearly in reference to the LICENSE DOCUMENT and not the LICENSE ITSELF.

Forgive the shouting, but this situation seems childish anyway.

Its quite childish. That's where we derive the LOLs

Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation?

I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no training in law.

> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation?

I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues

Whats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.

Yes, exactly. The license clause can only be enforced because of copyright law, and fair use is allowed for by the copyright law. The rights given to you by the law supersede anything a license says, because without that law, the license would be completely meaningless.

(In theory, the reason EULAs work is because when you run the program, you are copying it from disk to RAM. This is why they are believed to be very shaky, as copyright law does not specifically consider copying from disk to RAM inside a black box to be "copying".

The GPL is on firmer ground, because it covers copying for distribution to other people. That is a situation that copyright law is specific about.)

LOL, WHUT?

This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to have an actual opinion.

You are allowed to create a derivative of the license for your own use.

But you are not allowed to modify an existing license document someone is already using with their code.

I'm not arguing this at all, that would be 'relicensing' AFAIK. My post was about changing the text of the AGPL itself. And my entire post was that I read that first clause and then thought, "WTF? Can I even make a funny blog post?" and then it became a funny blog post (to me) about me wondering if I could make a funny blog post.

Granted, that's not the first time this conversation has included the (to me) specifier so I may be in the minority on the amusement on this one.

The entire post was to point out my confusion. And there aren't 50 versions of the GPL. But there are many FOSS licenses. And compatibility is speech from a high horse. GPL advocates often worry about "license compatibility" when the GPL is incompatible with any other license.

I can't release MIT licensed code that links against a GPL'd library. That's a pretty huge incompatibility if you ask me.

  I can't release MIT licensed code that links against a GPL'd library. That's a pretty huge incompatibility if you ask me.

Of course you can. The belief that the GPL is "viral" or can somehow infect unrelated software is spread by groups opposed to widespread creation of GPL'd software.

The GPL is a copyright license. It applies only to cases covered under copyright, eg, distribution of the original and derived works. This means you can release code under any license that links to GPL'd code. If you create a derived work (eg, compiled binary) from both original works, you'd need to abide by the terms of both licenses.

For example, say you have an application under the MIT license, and you'd like to support a GPL'd library. The resulting license tree would look like this:

  MIT (app code)    GPL (library code)
   |                 |
   -------------------
           |
          GPL (app binary)

So you're saying that I can license my code under anything as long as I still follow the rules of the GPL...

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibrary...

Does mention "or compatible license".

And I'm really confused about dynamic languages that aren't explicitly compiled before distribution.

You can distribute your code under any license, no matter what, as long as it's not derived from GPL'd code (eg, you didn't copy-paste it and change a few strings).

The FAQ entry deals with derived works (eg, compiled binaries). If your code's license is not GPL-compatible, then any work derived from both your code and GPL'd code cannot be legally distributed -- for example, it is illegal to distribute a binary which is statically linked against BSD-4 and GPL code. The ability to distribute binaries is why GPL compatibility is so important.

This applies to dynamic languages as well. Python or Ruby code can be distributed under any license the author wishes, but works created from a combination of that code and GPL'd code must be covered by the GPL.

For example, say Alice creates a Python library libalice and publishes it under the GPL. Bob writes an application BobApp which uses that library, and publishes it under the X11 license. Charlie uses py2exe to create an easily distributable version of BobApp, which includes a private copy of libalice. The licenses are:

  libalice: GPL
  BobApp: X11
  Charlie's BobApp.exe: (GPL + X11 + Python license) -> GPL

If you'd like, you can think of licenses mathematically: license(foo + bar) = license(foo) + license(bar). If the licenses are compatible, then the strictest license is used for the derived work. If the licenses are not compatible, the derived work cannot be distributed.

US copyright law, fundamentally, is not complicated. The hard part is figuring out what "derived work" means, which depends on local laws and customs, and which you need to be a lawyer to figure out. Luckily, most cases involving software are very clear-cut, so even lay-people can get by with just a copy of the relevant regulation.

People should stop inventing their own vanity licenses; there are enough popular, legally-sound options available for any reasonable licensing schema.

If you want to ensure everybody who receives your code can modify it, use the GPL or LGPL.

If you want to disclaim your rights to the extent allowed by law, use the BSD 3-clause or X11 (aka MIT) licenses. These are one step above the public domain, and are legal even in jurisdictions which do not recognize the public domain.

Do not use: some license a non-lawyer thought up in a fit of pique after mis-reading somebody else's license. This applies to the author's TPL, the infamous WTFPL, and similar poorly-considered licenses.

These vanity licenses are LOLs licenses. Those of us that are actually concerned with such things actually do use a license of our choice. I tend to prefer the X11/MIT because its short enough I understand it. But occasionally I use the TPL for small things just to make people contemplate.

I can't say I care for his proposed license. I recommend instead considering the WTFPL: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

The author of the WTFPL was the Debian Project Leader for a while and his site has a tribute to goatse. Make of that what you will...

The WTFPL also made me LOL. But the TPL was written by a friend so I lean towards that one. I think both are firmly planted in the LOL world so its only a matter of preference of what flavor of LOL that you prefer.

Um, that just means that you can't distribute something under a modified form of the AGPL, and still call the license the AGPL...

Are you willing to stake your lunch on that interpretation? I read it as "no modifications allowed" as opposed to "modifications require a new name not confusable with the AGPL". I would support the second, but the first interpretation is what actually motivated opening my editor.

Isn't everything a modification of everything else then? I "modified" your comment by deleting it and writing this one.

I propose an experiment where we introduce Levenshtein to a lawyer and see who's head explodes first.

Contemporary GPL is a terrible name. Things are only contemporary for a limited time (by definition). What do you do after the Internet is obsoleted? Rename the new version The New Contemporary GPL?

I think he said "Contemplorary" which is where the LOLs come from.

Ah, I need to learn to read :)

BWAHAHAHA :D

Jan found the LOLs

Were they that hard to find?

I found 'em.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com