Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:They don't seem to place a limit on when those terms come into effect - unless I'm missing something obvious (we're reading a complex license!)
Quote: "To 'propagate' a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law,
other than executing it on a computer or making private modifications."
Copyright law doesn't restrict end-user use, generally, except in very specific, limited scenarios that would reduce the value to the copyright holder. As a result, it can't effectively plug the webservices loophole.
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:the terms are literally YOU'RE personal terms, in your wording, with your conditions
Not really. They spell out the only four categories you can restrict, and in very limited terms. Then they specifically disallow any other restrictions beyond those four.
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Assuming this is the case, you could simply extend the license with an own term based liberally on the AGPL (can't be the same for copyright safety).
That is exactly right. One of the four is meant to duplicate the same process the AGPL uses. Notably, that doesn't solve the webservices loophole. It does, thankfully, limit that loophole in a very big way.
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Now if you assume a link to an archive is such a facility (can't think of many other reasonable facilities - even a view source link has limited usefulness) then with the additional term, meeting the requirements of the GPL v3 section 7d, you would have a program licensed under GPL v3 without the loophole.
Nope. The terms cannot limit private use, and the FSF specifically states that execution is not limited.
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Personally I don't see how any other License terminology can interfere with this - its not stating any dependency on a trigger event (distribution or otherwise). Its simply stating that if the facility exists, it must be preserved with any changes necessary to apply to the modified source.
In US copyright law, the presumption is that once you have possession of the good, you can use it as you like - "Fair use". Fair use does not include the right to make copies, the right to make a modification and pass it off as your own, and so on.
To gain those rights, you have to exchange some rights. Thats generally done in a license. The license specifies what rights the original copyright holder grants to you, and what you have to accept in exchange.
The net result of GPLv3 (especially section 7) is to, like the Affero, put the best possible solution in place to require a view-source link. Unfortunately, due to Copyright Law, that can't include Public Performance.
I did quite a bit of research this weekend, including chatting with some law students. This is obviously not binding legal advice, so don't take it as such. However, here's the summary version.
You can't restrict execution in copyright law. The closest you can come is the concept of "Public Performance". The only problem is that there have only been a handfull of cases testing Public Performance in software.
All of them have been in favor of executing the software being Fair Use.
Thats part of why Creative Commons specifically suggests against using the CCL for Software. It has little case law (for software - its just the opposite for multimedia), and what case law it does have, its against the use of the CCL to restrict execution.
Here's the net effect for me:
We're trying to prevent a bad guy from being a jerk. We're trying to legally enforce fairplay. We can put restrictions on when people distribute code. We can restrict what they modify, to ensure that a view-source link remains (if they distribute it). We can even require that their code is licensed like ours.
The only thing we cannot do is prevent someone from taking the code, modifying it, and NOT distributing it. The webservices loophole.
Its unfortunate that Copyright law doesn't have the ability to prevent that issue. However, to get it to do so, you have to stretch several other legal issues to fit it. You can extend public performance, but then Tivo's would be at risk. You can extend EULA's, but then they have more power too. The list goes on.
In the end, we have to accept that the legal system doesnt offer perfect protection. If someone goes to the lengths to avoid ALL those issues, just to abuse the community, its clear that they have no goodwill. From there, we have a number of options, ranging from public shaming, mass competition, and so on.
It stinks, and I don't like that my code CAN be used against me that way, but if thats the closest we can get (and I think it is), and still be opensource/freedom software, I'll take it.
I'm sticking with the GPL.