Re: SSPL or server side public license, GNU better update the AGPL

[Jean Louis]

* Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> [2021-03-21 13:40]:
> * Jean Louis:
> 
> > The AGPL does not enforce the publishing of the source code when used
> > server side.
> 
> Why do you say that?

Maybe I am in misunderstanding of that, and maybe those companies
converting to proprietary software don't have valid points.

AGPL section:

13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

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. This
Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any
work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is
incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

Maybe as you say point out in your "why?", maybe there is really no
need for modification, but there was some problem in understanding on
those lines.

MongoDB modifies AGPL to this:

If you make the functionality of the Program, or a modified version
available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service
Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge,
under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the
Program or modified version available to third parties as a service
includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with
the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through
a computer network offering a service the value of which entirely or
primarily derives from the value of the Program

So they use here "must" and exclude only users interacting with it,
but include that license shall make software free for everybody.

Example is where only some users have access to service, those could
pay let us say US $500 -- now other users would be excluded, they
would not be able to interact with software for lack of money, but now
cannot get modified version, author included.

The word "must" relates to maybe misunderstood part of AGPL "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..." --  maybe this is
equivalent to their meaning where they mention "must".

> That company previously told their users that the AGPL would not
> extend to the software the users wrote using the company's product.
> Their software also lacked a built-in compliance mechanism.

I was not thinking of those things. But AGPL says that modified
version should be modified that is provides compliance.

> They also never had to figure out what the AGPL really means because
> they had an asymmetric licensing arrangement with their
> contributors.

I see.

> I do think that the AGPL turned out to be poorly worded and should
> have used language similar to this GPL clause:

It is fine piece of legal document. I have not indicated for it to be
poorly worded. We discuss rather than general issue, those specifics
that caused few of companies to change their terms.

> But given the other factors in the case you raised, I don't think the
> AGPL ambiguity was of great relevance in the end.  My impression is
> that the company never had increasing the amount of free software
> available to the general public as one of their goals.  The AGPL was
> just a marketing tool.  And it backfired when it turned out that the
> AGPL does not discourage commercial use in the way they assumed it
> would.

For those authors changing the software to proprietary that is it! You
have said it well.

For those few changing from AGPL, that still remains to be solved, as
there will be other companies following it. Maybe explanation page or
more of guidance pages on GNU could help in resolving this issue.

It would be good to understand better the actual problem and see if
GNU project can assist those authors in future, either with changes to
AGPL, or some explanatory page or guidance page.

Even better, if there would be some list of attorneys on GNU page
related to AGPL and other license that can help with enforcement, then
authors would rather like to stick to it, and we would have less
software converted to proprietary. License is there, but it does not
help those authors to get for example damages, they are inclined to
find solutions for their activities.

Yet that hurts free software, it is obvious that few software was lost
to proprietary.

Jean