@lxo the person *running* the software on *their own computer*, obviously. in the case of the AGPL, that would be the SaaS proprietor.

you got yourself some studying to do. the AGPL is written for the case in which the user whose computing the software does is the remote party, not the one running the server

@lxo yes the user of the software is the person running the software on their computer - that is, the server operator.

the anti-capitalism ideology in rms/fsf has to swap the terms around to suddenly declare these people running software on their own computers somehow unworthy of privacy.

@arh number 3 - "when you wish". i may wish to make no copies of my modified server software, and never distribute them. AGPL prevents this.

@sneak yeah you have a point. I’ll ask RMS and FSF about this.

@arh they redefined "user" to be the person making the http requests and not the person, you know, who actually edited and is running the software on the computers they own, because they're anti-capitalists who don't believe in the concept of private property when it comes to information. they have a stock retort for when they are accused of this which does not actually refute the issue.

@sneak I am opposed to capitalism as well tbh.

@arh i find that most people who are economically unproductive are; my theory is that they wish to have the same quality of life as those who are economically productive. unfortunately you can't get there without breaking the NAP.

@sneak I don’t know how to feel about this but I think I can’t agree on this one.

they redefined “user” to be the person making the http requests and not the person, you know, who actually edited and is running the software on the computers they own

Say if I borrow your machine, @sneak, and use the software on it, who will be the user, you or me? What software does is transforming data from one form to the other, which makes usage the transformation of data and user the one giving the input and taking the output (in various format). The additional clauses of AGPL (compared to GPL) close the loop hole of SaaSS. Who at which end of e.g. the HTTP requests is not the deal breaker, but who actually uses the software, to be provided as a service or not.

they’re anti-capitalists

The entire concept of software freedom, including copyleft, in contrary to popular belief, is pro-capitalism, by facilitating a free market and competition. Copyright, on the other hand, is about monopolistic power and as anti-capitalism as possible, but I was told that it’s supposed to encourage creativity so

[they] don’t believe in the concept of private property when it comes to information

I can see your confusion here. Back to the hypothetical scenario, per private property rights alone nothing would prevent me from make an exact copy of your machine when I borrow it and the same for the software. The reason an user of a SaaSS cannot do so is not because private property, but copyright.

I hope this clarifies it for you as well, @arh

@cnx

nothing would prevent me from make an exact copy of your machine when I borrow it and the same for the software. The reason an user of a SaaSS cannot do so is not because private property, but copyright.

How do you make a copy of the software that runs the service?

@sneak @arh

@xarvos @arh @cnx you don't. it's not yours. it's private. it's the same as if you asked me over the phone to add some numbers together and i did, and told you the result, and then suddenly felt entitled to a copy of my hard drive. it's lunacy to redefine "user" to someone who is not running the software (and indeed never had/touched the software!)

@sneak, in that case, you are the user because you put the input in and take the output out and directly provide the service to me. In other words, from my point of view it is you, with computer assistance or not, who adds the numbers for me.

Your presence is the key to the interpretation of the scenario on weather or not I am the user. Similarly, it’s different in case e.g. you personally pump my tires vs you leave the pump there for me to do it myself. The reason for this is that only human beings can be held accountable and have rights under the eyes of the laws, not tools, digital or not. Cc: @xarvos

@xarvos, I am personally not able to make a physical copy of a modern computer either; the point being the legality of such action under the context of private property, i.e. permission, not capability. Cc: @sneak

@cnx @arh

no, this is the whole motte-and-bailey argument that FSF anticapitalist zealots like to toss out whenever they are called out on their ideology that extends past software.

it's a violation of my privacy to demand that i publish files from my own server simply because i ran "systemctl start httpd". there is no "application service provider loophole", it's a feature not a bug.

the AGPL is nonfree.

@sneak, you are not demanded to publish files from your server because you ran httpd. Per AGPL, users have the right to study/modify/redistribute the software they use. If no one uses the software running on your server, i.e. either no one interacts with it or that the server does not process data on behalf of anyone (in case you use httpd only to for static content, assuming httpd was under AGPL), modifications made to AGPL’ed software need not be disclosed upon requests.

@cnx you seem to think that my difference of opinion about the AGPL stems from my misunderstanding it.

nothing you've sent me is something i didn't know.

i'm talking about the so-called "ASP loophole", and the fact that AGPL software is nonfree because you are forced to make public private modifications that are executed only on your *own* hardware if those algorithms are used remotely by customers over the network.

@sneak, I fail to understand how where the software runs on matters. If I rent a VPS and run software one the so-called cloud, would it still be me running or is it the owner of the machines doing it? Am I entitled to rights and well as responsibility with the usage the software or is it the physical machine owners? How about CI/CD and shared machines (those people can SSH into and do computationally heavy stuff)?

The same if you provide a video-editing software as a service (running on your machine) and someone produce child porn using it, logically should you be held responsible for making of child pornography?

@sneak @cnx GPL is nonfree because you are forced to make public private modifications that were made on your *own* hardware if those algorithms are used by customers you only gave the resulting binary to.

When you provide a remote interface to your program, then any remote user will also become the user of your program. But those remote users do not have the same freedoms as defined by rms which is a problem that agpl attempts to solve - it treats all that send commands to the software, whether by hand or network, as equal.

@asterope @cnx nah the user is the person running the software to operate their service business.

software is not a service. software is software and a service is a service. *customers* not having access to the software backing a service is not an abridgment of freedom, any more than customers not being allowed in the kitchen of a restaurant.

@sneak @cnx No, but customers in restaurant have the right to know the ingredients and they are the ones to actually EAT what they are SERVED.

Service is a program too, it just so happens it can have hundreds of users at the same time, connected to it by remote means. It makes little difference whether the commands are sent through longer or shorter wires. You and your customers are BOTH users.
But since the remote users do not need the program to be distributed to them to use it, because it uses a limited remote interface, it exposes an oversight in the gpl license.
A remote user is effectively using the backing software but it's a blackbox behind an interface. One solution is to force users that HAVE the physical files to expose them to those that DO NOT have them.

you appear to reject the fundamental premise of the free software movement, that the *user* is entitled to control their *own* computing. you want it with a twist: that the *operator* be entitled to control everyone else's computing. those are not the same. you're entitled to your opinions and agendas, of course, but that's not what the free software movement is about.

@lxo the operator of a business uses software to conduct that business and is the user of the software. when you use SaaS you aren't a software user, you're just handing off your data for someone else to use software to provide you with service. it's the difference between cooking and going to a restaurant.

SaaS is about as confusing as cloud and IP, it jumbles too many different kinds of services under the same umbrella. that's why we who care about users' software freedoms use terms that distinguish between services in which the software running on a server performs the operator's computing (the case you seem to care about), those in which the software performs the remote client's computing (the SaaSS case that AGPL addresses) and those in which it performs multi-party computing (publishing, communication).
maybe lowering the abstraction level would help. instead of reasoning in terms of "the service is my computing!", which is a perfectly fine stance to take in some cases but not in others, we should look into the specifics of some kinds of services and see what follows from that?

@lxo a zealot is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject

you're forgetting about the freedoms of the most important users

your confession is appreciated ;-p
to me, the most important users are those whose computing is being performed. agree/disagree?

@lxo no the most important users are the ones who are being economically productive and making the world better and more efficient for others. end users don't matter much in the scheme of things. i'd rather have 5 more steve jobs' than 5x the number of iphone users as an available market.

@lxo to that point, the "application service provider loophole" isn't a loophole at all. free software could be one of the most hugely beneficial ideas in the history of the world (look what happened to linux, and clang, and node, and mysql, etc) but the AGPL kneecaps this possibility because it's fundamentally *unfree* in the sense that it destroys the *service* (not software) vendor's privacy for their "secret sauce".

you don't owe anything "in return" for a gift freely given.

@sneak @lxo if the secret sauce were the value-add, businesses could still work with the AGPL'd code being externalized.

@sneak @lxo when it can't, dual licensing is always a possibility.

@sneak @lxo Bruh, just use software licensed under BSD or MIT if you care about your "secret sauce" so much. No pesky zealots to deny your freedom there.

@dwaltiz @lxo that's what i do, obviously. i also intend to violate the AGPL as is convenient for me.

sorry to say, but that's not even an originally creative position to take. the same old tired parasitic argument has been made by copyright exploiters about music and movies, and by software tyrants about the GPL that you praise. power over others is not freedom. you're perfectly free to modify AGPLed software and use it for your own computing. the requirement only kicks in when you attempt to use it to gain control over remote users. they deserve freedom, and control over their own computing, as much as you do, no matter how convoluted a reasoning you might have to try to deny them the freedom they deserve, and every rationale I've ever seen that calls for power to take freedom away from others backfires: as other exploiters flock to gain and exert such power, you end up losing orders of magnitude more than you could potentially gain. if users don't matter much to you, do without them; you're not entitled to them, and no users is what you should earn for not respecting them

@lxo keeping your private things private is not "power over others" unless you've an entitled anticapitalist worldview.

@sneak @lxo I'd argue that one does not need to hold an "entitled anticapitalist worldview" to see that *private* things are not served to others. Quite the opposite, actually.

@sneak @lxo
Quite interesting to note that most Jobs/Musks/Zucks don't seem to agree with what you say. I keep hearing them talk about how important the rest of us unproductives are! Maybe they've been lying about all of the "make the world a better place" business?Also, the iPhone users, you say, are not needed. What about the employees? I mean where does the "only people we truly need" line begin? Maybe just try to save all the CEOs and we're done?

@prasoon @lxo i did not say users are not needed. you are now discussing in bad faith and i'm done. have a nice day.

I didn't say you didn't need them. quite the opposite. I realize you wish to farm them, so you need them. the thing is, they don't need you. if you choose a model that exploits them by depriving them of the freedom they deserve, I and others like me will work to enlighten them to do without you, because you said yourself that they don't matter, and they deserve to know that, and how you go about your business. knowing that, I hope they will realize that you don't matter to them either, and then you may end up with your wish fulfilled: you get to keep your modified version all to yourself

@sneak
I hope we dont push the kitchen analogy too far here. Any restaurant, at least as per the food control laws of my country, and most places Im aware of, is required to go through periodic inspections and audits. Most restaurants also have a policy for customer inspection on requests (even McD has it!)
What you are saying is, quite simply, no true.
Inspection of services for safety of all kinds is the norm, even in a free market economy.