Discuss changing license to AGPL #149

New Issue

Open

opened 2024-04-01 08:43:01 +02:00 by pfm · 1 comment

pfm commented

2024-04-01 08:43:01 +02:00

Collaborator

No description provided.

👍 1

pfm added the

IDEA

label 2024-04-01 08:43:01 +02:00

EmanuelLoos commented

2024-04-09 11:10:43 +02:00

Contributor

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. […]

The question is however, if the person sending an email to a server with gpg-lacre would be considered a "user" as well by the license. In this hypothetical scenario, everyone using gpg-lacre on a private mailserver would have to provide the source code of their version to whoever sent any emails there. However, I think this probably would not count as "interacting with a user", because it is interaction with other mail servers. According to the GNU Project supported by the Free Software Foundation:

In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network?” (#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely)

If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played online.

If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH, or a remote X session.

I think it is a good idea. The users of a mailserver with gpg-lacre should have a right to the source code of the exact version of gpg-lacre responsible for encrypting their emails. The AGPL does this with Section 13: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. […] The question is however, if the person sending an email to a server with gpg-lacre would be considered a "user" as well by the license. In this hypothetical scenario, everyone using gpg-lacre on a private mailserver would have to provide the source code of their version to whoever sent any emails there. However, I think this probably would not count as "interacting with a user", because it is interaction with other mail servers. [According to the GNU Project supported by the Free Software Foundation](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely): > **In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network?”** (#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely) > > If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played online. > > If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH, or a remote X session.

❤️ 1