AGPL

Isn't the normal GPL nearly useless for webapps? With GPLv3, any asshole can legally run a backdoored version of your libre code on their server, and they'll never have to release their modifications. We NEED the AGPL.

...

GPL preserves freedom you permissive license loving faggot.

Yes it preservers the four freedoms for users.

If you are complaining about the freedom of choice ask yourself what are the possible choices when you have none because someone had the freedom to remove them from you ?

(checked)
Dubs of truth

...

Sod off gnumales

kill yourself proprietary shills

The GPL is still very useful for webapps. It preserves freedom for the people who run the servers.

Using the AGPL to prevent backdoors is ineffective. There's no way to verify that the source code you receive corresponds to the source code running on the server.

sounds right to me

It's not perfect, but it adds legal disincentive. The same could be said for the normal GPL, which lots of proprietary software probably does violate.

With AGPL you can just put a non-AGPL proxying layer between the AGPL software and the public.

Not much of a disincentive if it's basically impossible to get caught, is it.

Maybe you will get invited to her majesty's royal shitting street.

1+

They can regardless of the license. If they're doing shady shit, do you honestly think they give a fuck?

bump

Why are you running web applications if you don't trust them? Either accept that you can't trust them as you use them or stop using them at all.

That why the LGPL exists.

Thanks for the genius advice mate.

nice post

It's called Noscript. It's a tool to detect whether a website is designed to be defective.

GPL is like communism, you got the guys with guns demanding you follow their way and that you're finally free for doing so.

The only guns that the GPL has is copyright law. Are you asserting copyright law is communism?

You're forced to open the source, use the same license, and promotes sharing the means of production software from the bourgeoisie so you can tell yourself you're free.

Nobody is forcing you to open the source. Nobody is forcing you to share the software. If you want to share the software, that's your choice. The GPL only gets its power from copyright law and you're asserting the the GPL is communism? Good argument.

So because you have to follow rules, it is communism? Then proprietary licenses are communism too since you must follow the license agreement before running the program

Copyleft was created as a measure to counteract copyright restricting everything by default, and turn it on its head. If copyright ceased to exist, the free software movement would carry on like nothing happened.

It damn sure is similar.

You only have to give the source to those you distribute the software to. There are plenty of companies using proprietary in-house versions of copyleft software.

Get better bait next time.

Exactly, that's why the GPL is so good.

You need to make the distinction between proprietary software and private software. If you install a free software program (copyleft or permissive is irrelevent here) then modify the program, nothing is compelling you to redistibute the modifications that you make. Your software remains private. Proprietary software happens when software is distributed and the user of the software is forbidden to practice all four freedoms of free software.

No, proprietary = private, software you keep to yourself is personal software.

"proprietary in-house versions of copyleft software" are not (necessarily) actually proprietary.

A program is proprietary if the users of the software don't get the four freedoms. If the program is not distributed to outsiders then the outsiders are not users and it's not necessary for them to have the four freedoms in order to consider it non-proprietary.

Anything beyond gpl2 is legal quagmire,
NOBODY wants to deal with it.
Why everyone is switching to Apache, now that its getting old.

The only "legal quagmire" is that it makes it harder to exploit the end-user.

GPLv3 is easy to understand if you understand the meaning of the preamble. All you have to do is convey a copy of the source code along with the binary program, convey a copy of the GPL and also convey any technical keys that a user would need to practise their freedom. The only legal quagmire is when businesses or individuals want to restrict users in some way.