I wonder about the GPL3. There’s much talk about “closing the ASP loophole”.
Now, people using a wiki such as Oddmuse are also application service providers. They use the wiki, and their users usually have no access to the source. If the GPL v3 intends to fix this, what will wiki founders have to provide: Links to the wiki source and the modules? What about the configuration? There could conceivably be a lot of code in the config files... It is very hard to draw the line between configuration and modules.
Maybe a link to http://www.oddmuse.org/ is enough. But what if you used other modules you also got from elsewhere, do you have to provide links, too? Maybe only if the author requests it. We could do that: The Oddmuse:Version Action displays some text from every module loaded. If the author of a module wanted to, he could put a link in there.
To see this version information for my own site, click on *Administration* at the bottom of the page and click on the *Wiki Version* link. This used to take you to my the version page.
I guess I’d phrase it more or less like this:
When using this software to provide services without distributing the software, your service must provide easily findable links to the source code of the software. As a service provider you are not required to distribute the software, and therefore your code need not be licenced under the terms of the GPL. You must link to all GPL licensed code you are using, however. We also encourage you to license your code under the terms of the GPL and distribute it.
Browing around the FSF sites I ended up reading another entry of RichardStallman’s travel blog: His stay in Cambodia for FOSSAP II. I liked this part:
The climax of the event, for me, occurred when the representative of the government of a rather undemocratic Asian country defended the WTO. (The WTO requires copyright rules that forbid people from sharing.) He explained, condescendingly and at excessive length, that people who decide to play soccer must abide by its rules, arbitrary though they may be; then he compared the WTO’s rules to the rules of soccer. He said, “These are the rules that the wealthy countries have set for access to their markets. We have to accept them.”
I responded, “The WTO’s rules were designed to be unjust. In every country, they benefit the the wealthy and hurt everyone else. They give us a world of sweatshops. No country should accept these rules.” Half the people in the room then applauded. The other half probably support trickle-down economics.
#Wikis
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
You’re right closing the ASP loophole in the next version of the GNU General Public License can be a very tricky problem on the application side. For example, Affero (the idea is coming from them with their Affero Public License (a GPLv2 + an ASP clause)) is giving an url to download everything. Maybe a tarball generator excluding the configuration could be a way to solve the issue in Oddmuse but this will add a layer of complexity and other potential issue... I’m sure that the free software “community” can be imaginative to find solution but I hope this clause will not harm the adoption of GPLv3 itself.
– adulau 2005-12-11 10:59 UTC
---
I think the software service issue (surely software was distributed to users over NFS and even networks in 1991!) can be solved by simply broadening the definition of “distribute” in the GPL.
I think truy copyleft-wingers should shamelessly make available the source code of their Web software, and do so in creative ways. I always was inspired by EmacsWiki for that reason.¹ Not that there was an “offer” for source code on EmacsWiki, its just *there*.
Concerning “source code offers”, section 3 and the appendix on “How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs” of GPLv2, although dated, seem generic enough to be useful in software distributed as services. I’m more concerned about finding a way to enforce CopyLeft² than I am about whether users of free software are obligated to reveal their passwords in their configuration files or something rather similar.
I think its helpful if we all start re-reading the GPL and citing it in discussions as if it were Marx or the holy bible. That way, we can avoid being sucked into baiting arguments, and sort out the non-believers and believers in our conversation. Not in a sectarian way, but in a way that educates the GPL, makes disagreements useful, and saves us all a lot of time.
– AaronHawley 2005-12-13 04:35 UTC
---
Hm, quoting more of the GPL might be a good idea for upcoming discussions. Without a GPLv3 to quote from, however, I feel on thin ice when it comes to future developments.
As for the availability of source code on EmacsWiki, I’m glad you like how I’m trying to keep everything as open as possible.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-12-13 07:40 UTC