https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
rms himself writes (in (3)) about why the AGPL is nonfree.
@sneak AGPL doesn’t restrict you from that.
@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.
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
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
following your master's steps like a pro
S.jobs also thought he could get away with depriving users of freedom over his improvements to copyleft software. eventually he was told otherwise, first by copyright holders of the software he modified, then by his own lawyers. he ended up contributing his improvements to the GNU Compiler Collection, where they are to this day.
he learned a lesson, but not very well: later on, he decided to self-exile from the wonderful world of freedom-respecting software.
now, maybe you think you're smarter than he, and that you can get away with it. maybe you are indeed, or maybe you'll get lucky. but if you were really smarter, you'd save yourself the trouble of the lawsuit, the reluctant contributions, and the self exile, and would instead figure out a business model in which you, your customers and even your competitors would collaborate to everyone's benefit
@lxo you're no longer conversing in good faith, so i'm going to add you to the list of people i've muted. further interactions will not be read. have a nice day.
@lxo keeping your private things private is not "power over others" unless you've an entitled anticapitalist worldview.
@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?
@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.
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.