Google versus Affero
LWN had an interesting article that mentioned Eben Moglen talking about Affero:
Eben had a fairly strong warning for Google. If the company continues to operate in a secretive way and not contribute back the bulk of its changes, there will be growing pressure for a remedy based on licensing terms. It is really up to that one company, he says, to determine where that aspect of the debate goes in the future.
This is quite distinct from the Eben Moglen Google Tech Talk message, although that deserves rewatching since there appears to be a lot to read between the lines.
Some interesting quotes from the LWN article:
The wish of some (e.g., in the “Affero” license) to extend that definition to include situations not covered by copyright law are likely to end up unenforceable, at best.
The new notion of “propagation” in the most recent draft of the GPL v3 allows the extension of copyleft protection into areas not normally considered by copyright law, by selectively withholding permission to do things which *are* the provenance of copyright. This applies, in particular, to the GPLv3’s patent and anti-DRM provisions, and to the no-more-MS-Novell-deals clause. It might apply equally effectively if “propagation” were defined also to include providing a service to the public based on the covered work. The current GPL v3 draft does not do this; a later version of the Affero licence probably will. If copyright gives holders the right to demand payment per copy or for a licence to prepare derivative works, it certainly gives them the right to impose conditions on the way in which those actions are permitted. Nevertheless I don’t think applying those terms to the GNU body of code would be sufficient to force a company the size of Google to publish its in-house code. I am certain they are very well aware of what code they own and what they have licensed from elsewhere, and of the terms of each and every license. Such a move might be so counterproductive as to move Google from the “free software is a good thing and I’m pleased to contribute even if not all my products are free software” camp into the “FSF are communists who want me to give away my golden goose” camp.
And here’s the meat of the old Affero license:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The Google versus Affero by David Crossland, except the quotations and unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
August 5, 2007 |
Comments
Leave a Reply
