Please Explain The AGPL Copyright

Tentatively (someone will correct me if I am wrong):
1. You can ask for an exemption of making everything available under AGPL by asking for written permission from the copyright holder.
2. A commercial license is in preparation and issues as mentioned by you probably will find a place in it.

Please, make everything available to clients as you always did, as long as you repsect other people's copyright. Enforcement of AGPL license on every mod/infusion will be not 100% as long as you act sensible and responsible because we realise that it will be neigh impossible to make every tiny little modification available.

Thank you Muscapaul for your Tentative but fast response.

However the problem is my clients as much as myself as they don't wish to risk their sites anymore than i wish to develop at a fee just so they have to sacrifice it.
I should of course also point out that while fusion and those related to it may not pursue this type of thing (infringement) they are not able to speak for all users and it only takes on user to create the problems as mentioned since the one who requests the source would most likely then release it under the terms of the license.

Awaiting further responses :)

AGPL in short, IMO:

- any existing file released under AGPL which has been modified should be made available to the public. (also AGPL and a note with it: what was the original file and what did you do with it)
- any file you've created from scratch yourself, even when it won't run without PF, is your intellectual property, so may be kept private if you wish.

So: if you made an infusion from scratch, you are the owner of the script and you decide which license applies.

That's how I see AGPL.

AFAIK: When you use the AGPL licensed PHPFusion system (for example by using infusion or using maincore functions means that it needs to be AGPL, unless you have premission from the copyright holder to release it under another license.
I think KEFF sorted that with the fsf.org people.

I find the questions interesting also. Could a SA reply on this. I only see developers hands being tied if they need to release every mod/infusion they make available. How does a site become unique this way?

Uncalled for such a rude question, imo, what could there be in it to make up such a thing? I've been doing this in my sparetime for almost 5 years by now, I've had nothing but expenses for doing it, did it for the fun of it and questions like that do take the fun away, so I really resent that kind of speculations.

What would be a "reasonable proof" for you? Want me to publish my private emails in here? No way I ever do that. If in doubt, you have every right to email FSF yourself, looking for clarification.

I'm not, nor anybody else in crew, a lawyer, in fact, the people who replies these questions when you do adress FSF are no lawyers either, they work pretty much the same way as we do, on their own time. They do not provide answers chiseled in stone, they give advice to the best of their understanding, probably because no cases of this nature has ever been taken to court, which makes it pretty uncertain as to how to interpret any license to the letter.

And yes, the license is very vague, both AGPL and GPL v 3 are very unclear regarding certain issues, which leaves room for speculations and doubts, which is a pain for everyone involved.

Before I go into answering your questions to the best of my ability, I'd like to recap as to why we did change from GPL to AGPL in the first place: it had everything to do with ripoffs. Ripoffs and nothing else. Nobody embarked the PHPFusion train to make some easy bucks, but we sure did want our copyright to remain intact, as a token of respect for the work we've put into this project.

Under GPL 2 it's allowed to basically do what you want with a software, including actually stealing it, rebranding it and claim it's a totally different product, and that did happen to us on numerous occasions. We got screwed pretty bad and people didn't even have the courtesy to ask before they screwed us and to any man/woman doing a hard job that is truly disgraceful.

AGPL made it possible for us to a): being an Open Source software and b): we were allowed under the previous version of AGPL to charge, legally, for the removal of the copyright, which was not the case under GPL 2.

Since we decided on AGPL 1 version 3 became available and we took the decision to go along with that version instead of the original one.

OK, that's the background.

Now to the questions at hand. xandros mention a software called MyBB, saying that they say etc and that's quite irrelevant, since they are licensed under GPL v 3, we are licensed under AGPL v 3. Although almost identical, the two licenses do differ some. Regarding the copyright notice, they do not differ a bit, under Terms and Conditions, this is the same for both licenses:



That is where the copyright footer comes in, it must be visible on all pages of a software, it must contain the following, according to FSF: name of copyright holder, that it is released under AGPL and that it's released without any kind of warranty. Same applies to AGPL and GPL.

So perhaps its more relevant to ask the people behind MyBB why they understand the license the way they do?



It's not. The Copyright Removal License cost 30£.

And xandros/chankarwing, if you really wanna make a site unique, make your own CMS. Don't jump onto anything licensed under a weak license, remove the copyright and call it your own product. To claim uniqueness, one has to be unique...

While you're at it, make sure you have a valid email adress in here. That is required.

/UPDATE: you have been banned by me again. I don't know who let you back in, but I threw you out again, since youre just here to make trouble. End UPDATE.

Aussi, you have some concerns as well. I contacted FSF with the question you raise in mind and the answer was in short as follows: it's considered a preferred manner to license Infusions etc under the same license as the product under which it runs, in this case AGPL. Nota Bene, the preferred way.

Having that said, it did not mean it was the only way. They mentioned licensing under GPL 3 as an alternative, another one is to ask the copyrightholder for permission, such as permission to use your own license, as you had before. That is one way to solve your problem.

Both GPL 3 and AGPL 3 are approved of both FSF and OSI as free licenses, the latter with stronger copyright protection for the developer. I for one does not want the old license back where it was possible to rip off peoples stuff and it was allowed under that license. Copyright is there for the benefit of the developer, not primarily the customers.

AGPL is superior in my mind primarily because of two things: it does provide any developer a better copyright protection while still being a free alternative, and also, the clause you refer to assures a better flowback to the community as such, since that license covers the SaaS - hole, which the GPL does not.

I'm working on a couple of commercial alternatives as well, licenses that is, one for PHPFusion and one for developers of third party stuff, such as Infusions etc. Not yet quite finished though. Perhaps that can be of interest?

Aussi, if you have any more on this, please PM me. I haven't got the time to take these debates, FSF is there for the asking, anybody can mail them and those in doubt better do that, since they are the ones responsible for the licenses as such, not PHPFusion.

Details about the licenses will be updated as they get finished on this site.

@ KEFF
Thank you for your response. I must admit to it being about as clear as expected. The license is new in comparison to others and for that reason no one really seems to know how it will work when it comes down to the line and that includes those who use it as well as those who wrote it.
This does not alter the problem for both developers and users who are in the position i mention and i do advise anyone who wants to be "unique" to remain aware of the license.

Feel free to lock this thread if that is your wish as i feel the question has been answered as best it can be and i will follow up by PM as requested.

True. But new doesn't have to mean worse, nor improved for that matter, we found that the old GPL didn't provide us with the copyright protection we want and that's the reason we changed to a license with strong copyright protection, yet still being free and giving us the possibility to provide copyright removal in a legal way, which is not the case under GPL 2.

For the time being, this is as good as it gets. If any improvements should show up, I for sure will investigate that, since I don't find this license to be 100% ideal either.

But for now it's the best one for us out there and surely nobody can hold that against Nick that he wanna protect his work and his copyright? Basically that's what we all wanna do by the end of the day, right?

I don't have a problem with anyone protecting their rights but always remember a license is only as good as the person reading it. Its a shame this license is set out the way it is but if its what works for fusion so be it i have other things i can play with until things are worked out at least.

Merry XMAS to all..

OuT