Thomas Dukleth wrote:
Each of us had to correct an earlier mistake in our analysis to see the issue clearly. As I have stated previously, the difficulty is not that AGPL 3 is new and untested as MJ Ray argues.
That's not what I argue.
The difficulty had been that AGPL 3 is sufficiently new that SFLC has lacked the familiarity of experience to already have well thought out answers to some questions about applying AGPL 3.
This ^^ is exactly what I argue. Even the expert lawyers that usually support our community haven't mapped all fairly obvious concerns yet.
1.2.1. SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO KOHA. [...] We should include Net::Z3950::ZOOM and the source code for Yaz for which ZOOM is merely a wrapper. [...] We should include DBI and the dependency which we currently require DBD::mysql. [...]
This makes the download size/cost problem a little bigger, as well as adding an element of repository management.
2.1. EQUIVALENT ACCESS TO PROGRAM AND CORRESPONDING SOURCE.
As the use is in object code form for a remote network user under AGPL 3, the "equivalent access" provision of section 6 (d) would apply. Limiting the bandwidth for accessing the source code to a greater degree than the limitation of the bandwidth of the program use for countries where network connectivity is poor and extraordinarily expensive would not be allowed. This change corrects the answer given for limiting bandwidth as a remedy to AGPL 3 objections given in section 3.1.1.3 of an earlier message of mine in this thread at http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-July/024391.html .
So I hope everyone reads this and understands the implication: if your source code download is being hammered, limiting its bandwidth means you should limit the bandwidth to your catalogue service too! A corner case question is whether putting the source code as a Disallow in the robots.txt http://robotstxt.org/ means you should list the whole Koha as Disallow. I know some libraries (those with rare books, for sure) like to have catalogue pages listed on search engines to help encourage membership.
A provider of free source code hosting services with ample bandwidth, such as http://www.gitorious.org/ and http://github.com/ , would be one option for hosting the Corresponding Source. Contracting Corresponding Source hosting services with a Koha support company would be another option. [...]
I remember that I have an outstanding question about availability linking and external hosting, but this raises another one: does this combine with the previous paragraph to mean that if your chosen cost-free source code hosting service denies bandwidth to someone, then your catalogue service should also deny them bandwidth? So, do any of the cost-free source code hosting services publish their block lists? I didn't find one. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and developer for hire at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op