SnapLogic RSS Feed
Free as in free rider….
Posted 8 August, 2007 by Chris in GPL, Open Source
Luis Villa introduces here the notion of ‘user-deployers’ and ‘user-consumers’ to distinguish between the two user constituencies and the inherent conflict that exists between them as Open Source software gets used as the basis for Software as a Service offerings.
The desire to maintain each groups freedoms is one of the reasons cited by the FSF to not address the ASP loophole in the GPLv3.
Unfortunately, this separation of constituencies must remain a purely academic exercise since the license makes no such distinction, leaving the ASP loophole intact.
In spite of my criticisms of the AGPL, I’m not even sure which side of this issue I support, but one thing that is clear to me is that the debate seems disingenuous. To assert a priori that one groups rights cannot be asserted over another’s is utter nonsense. That’s what a license does. Asserts my rights. As the author of a work, I can assign rights to whomever I choose, fairly or unfairly. It is my choice entirely.
So it’s clear that the FSF’s objective for the GPLv3 isn’t simply to assert rights as the author, but to ensure software freedoms and some would argue to become part of a broader social welfare function, which strives to drive societal change.
But even then, a social welfare function, by definition, seeks to maximize economic utility in part by favoring certain groups rights over others. So why not here?
GPLv3 could have closed the ASP loophole if it wanted to, but it didn’t. I think the FSF probably did the right thing by not addressing it, but I think the reason has little to do with preserving the rights of conflicted constituencies. I think it was much more fundamental: Nobody would use it.
3 Responses to “Free as in free rider….”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URL : http://www.snaplogic.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=79
Crosbie Fitch Says:
August 9th, 2007 at 12:45 am
An author has no more rights than any other human.
An author is given a privilege in the form of copyright that unethically suspends everyone else’s liberty to benefit the author in the form of a transferable monopoly. The GPL goes a very long way in neutralising this suspension of liberty by copyright and patent.
The problem people are beginning to confront with respect to the AGPL is related to a right rather than a privilege granted by copyright or patent.
This right is privacy.
Luis Says:
August 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I think it was much more fundamental: Nobody would use it.
Which would have been a great reason not to write GPL 1 and 2 as well; at the time it would have seemed self-evident that no one would use those.
But there are people (and large enterprises) who consider freedom to be a feature- that has driven GPL adoption, no matter how crazy that seemed in the late 80s. I think that if the right set of freedoms were defined and protected by a service license it would also get used, for the same reason.
That said, I do think that you’re right that the ‘ASP loophole’ as it is currently defined by AGPL is really not very useful or interesting to close; giving people the source to a service without the data and without other things that let them leave/fork really doesn’t do much. But I don’t think that means there isn’t a problem to solve- just that AGPL isn’t the solution.
Chris Says:
August 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Luis, I agree the ASP loophole is worth solving. But the AGPL isn’t really going to address it in any fundamental way.
The recently OSI approved CPAL I think is a better approach in that it requires access to source code to persons using it over a network