|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The following licenses try to address network services in some way or
| | {{autonomous|Licensing_approaches_to_network_services}} |
| another.
| |
| | |
| Given our limited time, I'd prefer to discuss general licensing strategies (source code, data, APIs, trademarks, etc.) rather than specific licenses. Have reorganized the page to reflect that. --LuisVilla
| |
| | |
| :I agree. I didn't expect the details of specific licenses to be a subject of major discussion; I was just providing them as background information. I was actually a little surprised to see just how similar they all were--while there are lots of differences in the details, I think it's safe to say they all use the same fundamental strategy. --[[User:BrettSmith|BrettSmith]]
| |
| | |
| == Source Code Licensing ==
| |
| === Affero General Public License ===
| |
| | |
| The [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html AGPL] says that if you modify the software, your modified version
| |
| must offer its source to users. It's written as a condition on
| |
| modification because that activity is controlled by copyright law.
| |
| The specific language (in section 13 of version 3) is:
| |
| | |
| :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 ersion 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.
| |
| | |
| === Honest Public License ===
| |
| | |
| The [http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/HPLv1.1.txt Honest Public License] consists of GPLv2 plus an additional
| |
| Affero-like term that was borrowed from a draft of GPLv3, made into
| |
| section 2(d). This makes the approach effectively identical to the
| |
| AGPL's. To the best of my knowledge, no software has been released
| |
| under this license.
| |
| | |
| === Open Software License/Academic Free License ===
| |
| | |
| The [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php OSL] defines setting up a web service to be "External Deployment,"
| |
| and says that when you externally deploy the software, you must follow
| |
| the same conditions that apply to distribution as well.
| |
| | |
| This is stated as a condition of the entire license. The OSL ''tries''
| |
| to be a contract, so when that happens, it's possible that you could
| |
| be compelled to follow this term no matter what you're doing with the
| |
| software. However, the OSL is also meant to be usable as a copyright
| |
| license, and in that case, the requirement could also hang on
| |
| otherwise-private modification, as the AGPL does.
| |
| | |
| All this analysis applies to the AFL as well; the two licenses differ
| |
| in other respects.
| |
| | |
| :5. External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c).
| |
| | |
| === Common Public Attribution License ===
| |
| | |
| The [http://opensource.org/licenses/cpal_1.0 CPAL] is a modified version
| |
| of the [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html Mozilla Public License],
| |
| adding a couple of noteworthy requirements. One of them is an "external
| |
| deployment" section. The language is clearly borrowed from the OSL; it has
| |
| been modified only to make references to other parts of the MPL. It
| |
| says:
| |
| | |
| :15. ADDITIONAL TERM: NETWORK USE.
| |
| :The term "External Deployment" means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code available under Section 3.2.
| |
| | |
| === Reciprocal Public License ===
| |
| | |
| The [http://opensource.org/licenses/rpl1.5.txt RPL] simply requires you to make source available to anyone who can run
| |
| the software remotely. It's not clear how they require the recipient
| |
| to do this; if pressed, I'd guess that the authors would argue that
| |
| the RPL is a contract that the recipient must accept to use the
| |
| software at all. The section with this specific requirement says:
| |
| | |
| :6.1 Availability of Source Code. You must make available, under the terms of this License, the Source Code of any Extensions that You Deploy, via an Electronic Distribution Mechanism. The Source Code for any version that You Deploy must be made available within one (1) month of when you Deploy and must remain available for no less than twelve (12) months after the date You cease to Deploy. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code to each version You Deploy remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party. You may not charge a fee for any copy of the Source Code distributed under this Section in excess of Your actual cost of duplication and distribution of said copy.
| |
| | |
| == Terms of Service/API Licensing ==
| |
| | |
| Access to a 'public' service can be a point of leverage for spreading and protecting user autonomy. e.g., if wikipedia's public APIs had TOSs that allowed only Free Software to utilize the APIs, it would be a significant 'win' for Free Software. I'm not suggesting that's the right path for Wikipedia- like libc, a more permissive approach might be appropriate. But it is an approach that may be worth considering.
| |
| | |
| To the best of my knowledge no public network APIs are actually licensed in this way at this time; it may be worth discussing why this is.
| |
| | |
| :You know how a lot of sites have a Terms of Service, and they claim that by visiting the site, you automatically agree to their terms? And how a lot of geeks tend to dismiss that whole notion?
| |
| :Wrapping the API in a TOS feels similar to me, at least. This is probably especially true for geeks who may be reluctant to draw a line between cases that feels artificial to them. Why should we wrap a TOS around an API if we don't want to wrap a TOS around web sites generally? They're both HTTP underneath, right?
| |
| :If you required everyone to go through a registration process to use the API, and you required agreement to a TOS as part of that, I think most hackers would basically be willing to go along with that on a meta level--then the question will be whether or not they're okay with the substance of the terms being offered. But registration may not be appropriate for every service, and I think we're likely to encounter a lot of resistance to a public service that purports to impose TOS on you.
| |
| :If that's legally doable and we think it's a good strategy, maybe it's worth doing education and advocacy for. But I think it does a lot to explain why you don't see this already, at least. --[[User:BrettSmith|BrettSmith]]
| |
| | |
| == Data Licensing ==
| |
| | |
| Part of the value of networked services is the ability to aggregate vast amounts of data that might not be possible with distributed services, so data licensing is an important component of understanding the licensing situation in networked services. TODO: links to CC, OKFN, freedomdefined
| |
