
Mailpile Chooses AGPL v3 - ahq
https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-07-02_Licensing_Decision.html
======
quadrangle
It speaks volumes about the debate in an anecdotal fashion that the very same
page of comments
([https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Fe...](https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Feedback.html)
— linked from the main announcement) has both:

RMS himself: "Both of these licenses qualify as free/libre; neither of them is
unethical. Given a choice between two ethically valid options…"

some anti-GPL person: "The GPL irritates me -- mostly because of RMS's "this
is the only answer" attitude"

I could go on about this, but just think about it for yourself. Don't be that
foolish person making up straw men.

~~~
asabjorn
It seems like AGPLv3 won by a slim margin, and as a donator I was unaware of
the voting and would have voted Apache. Since the desire was to make the
selection democratic they should have sent an email with a title along the
lines of 'vote request / help us choose the mailpile license'.

~~~
HerraBRE
Hello, Bjarni here from Mailpile.

I'm sorry you missed our announcements - we did send an e-mail to everyone who
donated $23 USD or more, inviting them to our community voting platform. We
tweeted and blogged, it was mentioned on Facebook... we used all the channels
we have and overall I've been very happy with community response.

There will be other votes in the future, so please follow us on Twitter or
subscribe to our blog's RSS if you're interested. And thank you for your
support! :-)

Regarding the election; as I mentioned in the post, I have been following the
ratios since elections started. The ratios have been pretty stable the whole
time; for every Apache vote there were roughly 1.05 AGPLv3 votes... I think
it's unlikely that better outreach would have changed things. A broader and
more lively debate might have, but given our limited resources we weren't able
to stoke that particular fire any more than we did.

~~~
jlgaddis
The blog post mentioned there was 16.5% "voter turnout".

Out of curiosity, what is the percentage of all of your donors who donated $23
USD or more (and, thus, received the e-mail invitation)?

I'm simply curious if there's a correlation between the two.

~~~
HerraBRE
It's 1:1, being able to vote is a perk you get for having donated $23 or more.
This is only the first time we seek feedback, not the last. :)

------
logn
Recently in my projects I've gone to AGPL with a linking exception for
unmodified versions. For me I think it's the right balance between freedom for
users and freedom for developers (while they may be making proprietary
software based on libre software, they're encouraged by the license terms to
help sustain the the main project).

(edited)

~~~
mark_l_watson
That sounds good. If you don't mind, please share how you worded that, or some
other reference.

~~~
logn
It's basically the GNU Classpath wording, but I had to modify it slightly to
achieve my goals [1]. Part of the wording about the objective (the first
sentence) was shamelessly borrowed from the Mattermost project [2]. GNU
Classpath is more permissive in that its exception applies to modified
versions too [3].

[1]
[https://github.com/MachinePublishers/jBrowserDriver/blob/mas...](https://github.com/MachinePublishers/jBrowserDriver/blob/master/LICENSE)

[2]
[https://github.com/mattermost/platform/blob/master/LICENSE.t...](https://github.com/mattermost/platform/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

[3]
[https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html](https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html)

~~~
wahnfrieden
Keep in mind the custom wording will make it harder for some companies to use
your code, since accepting additional licenses can require lawyer approval.
This adds value to choosing one of the common licenses over crafting a similar
fork.

~~~
kijin
LGPL was intended to be a standardization of "GPL with the Classpath
exception".

Perhaps we need a similar license for "AGPL with the Classpath exception".

Maybe call it LAGPL or something.

~~~
DannyBee
LGPL predates the classpath exception by quite a while, and doesn't serve the
same purpose at all.

The classpath exception is intended to cause the target software to not have a
license change just because it used a certain runtime library (classpath).

The LGPL has different aims entirely (around allowing library components for
software).

Essentially, the classpath exception was written for programming language
runtime libraries (and is thus the basis of what later became the gcc runtime
library exception).

The LGPL was written for random library software, and started out much earlier
than the classpath exception (by a decade or two).

------
robto
I've been following this project for a while now and I'm impressed with the
transparency around the decision making process. I'm looking forward to seeing
what comes next.

~~~
jflatow
This is the first time I've read about it, but I too was impressed by the
leadership. I also must say that I'm pleased with the outcome of this
election.

------
jordigh
I actually donated money so I could get voting rights. I'm very happy to see
that AGPL won, although just barely.

------
hbbio
In that space, we also chose the same AGPLv3 for our PEPS project.

I blogged about open sourcing the project and the license choice here:
[http://hbbio.tumblr.com/post/66287893522/open-sourcing-
peps-...](http://hbbio.tumblr.com/post/66287893522/open-sourcing-peps-a-
modern-webmail-server) and HN discussion at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6690603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6690603)

Several points and comments naturally also apply for Mailpile.

------
krick
So in the end he didn't actually explain, why he chose AGPLv3. "Because I
think it is the right license for this project". Of course he does: otherwise
he wouldn't chose it. Essentially it translates to "I chose it because I chose
it".

But why? If I would participate in the voting I would probably skim both, look
at Wikipedia and some of these "license explained" projects, but I doubt it
would be enough to be sure my vote is the right one whatever election result
will be in the end. What it actually means for the project to take this or
that stand?

I wonder, how many people who actually voted where thinking something like
this? Maybe it would be better if anybody who knows for himself which decision
is right would share his opinion explicitly. Who knows, maybe the voting
result wouldn't look so "divided" after such a discussion.

~~~
vog
_> he didn't actually explain, why he chose AGPLv3._

He did.

 _> "Because I think it is the right license for this project"._

That's the introduction sentence of that section. He then goes into more
detail. Did you skip the last 3 paragraphs?

\---------------

Mailpile is a project about freedom. It is not a popularity contest or a
startup, it's not "industry infrastructure", nor does it aim to be. Mailpile
is a political project which aims to improve the privacy and digital
independence of individuals everywhere.

The Apache License is a wonderful thing, an open, generous, pragmatic,
apolitical license. The AGPLv3 on the other hand, is a political and ethical
line in the sand.

And so is Mailpile.

\---------------

~~~
istvan__
Yes, this is exactly right. If you want to write free software just use a nice
license like MIT, BSD, Apache, Eclipse etc. Why would you want to force your
views on people?

~~~
kijin
Nobody is forcing any views on anyone. If you don't like the license on a
piece of code, don't use it.

~~~
istvan__
As I said earlier I do not use AGPL code. Don't you need to opensource a
service that works with the AGPL service?

~~~
kijin
You are right.

The whole point of Mailpile is to take your data off the cloud and control it
yourself. It is explicitly and deliberately anti-cloud. If the license makes
it nearly impossible for others to use Mailpile as part of a cloud-based
platform, the developers probably consider it a feature, not a bug.

If there's any program for which AGPL is an appropriate license, Mailpile is
it.

~~~
istvan__
We reached an agreement:

\- you proved to me that AGPL is not usable in any professional system that
runs in the cloud

\- also proved that it does things forcefully so I am right not using it

Thank you!

~~~
bildung
_> \- you proved to me that AGPL is not usable in any professional system that
runs in the cloud_

That interpretation is wrong. The AGPL just prevents you from pursuing a
business model that is based on leeching off the mailpile project without
contributing back.

It's the decade old misunderstanding. The GPL is about _user_ freedom. You
talk about _developer_ freedom. Mailpile tries to optimize for _user_ freedom.
The whole project is about preventing business models like the one you
proposed. Choosing the AGPL is completely coherent with the stated project
goals.

~~~
istvan__
Nope.

I am not leaching on anything. You can twist words as much as you want but
freedom is not defined by you or RMS or for that matter anybody else. It is
pretty clearly defined in the dictionary and AGPL contradicts the foundation
of freedom. If you dont want people use your software freely dont call it free
software. Call it "limited use to a subset of non-profit oriented users who
contribute everything back in return of using my software". That would greatly
simplify the life for everybody and we could save the planet instead of
haveing this thread about what is the definition of freedom and who does it
apply to.

~~~
belorn
No. The foundation of freedom as defined in Western and European law comes
mostly from the roman empire and is what later defined the political science
of liberty.

The foundation of freedom rest in the individual ability to create agency.
Freedom is not the "liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he
pleases, and not to be tied by any laws", but "consists of being under no
other lawmaking power except that established by consent".

It was a licensed chosen by a vote. As freedom goes, it more or less defines
the ideal situation.

~~~
istvan__
Sorry but freedom existed before law existed. This argument that everything
has to be defined by the law is silly.

~~~
belorn
Philosophy describe that as Freedom of nature: "to be under no other restraint
but the law of nature".

Do you want people to have an be able to exerciser that kind of freedom?

------
rbanffy
The software I work on, MAAS, is also licensed under the AGPL. It is the
perfect license for a lot of projects.

[https://maas.ubuntu.com/](https://maas.ubuntu.com/)

------
DoubleMalt
I did not vote. Not because I don't care, but because I agree with RMS.

We use AGPL for the code we write ourselves in our project
[https://cloudfleet.io](https://cloudfleet.io) (sorry for the shameless plug),
so Mailpile choosing AGPL fits in nicely.

But it would not have fit less so, had it chosen Apache.

------
em3rgent0rdr
Regardless of the AGPL vs Apache debate, isn't it extremely poor practice to
retroactively decide how votes are to be interpreted? The manner of weighting
would have changed the voter turnout: e.g. if high-donaters know their votes
would be weighted higher, then there may have been greater turnout among high
donaters, or may have even been uproar by the low donaters.

~~~
belorn
He only thought about retroactively change how votes were to be interpreted.
The default choice and the one used is to simply tally the number of votes and
whatever get a higher number wins.

But I agree that if they had decided to use a non-default method, it really
should have been said before the vote rather than after. How to count votes is
a common theme in manipulating vote results.

------
zmmmmm
Strange to choose between two such starkly different options. AGPL is about
the most commercially hostile license you can find, while Apache is at the
complete opposite end of the spectrum. Given the results are so polarised, I
wonder if they could not have achieved a better outcome by offering something
in the middle (regular GPL, or LGPL, etc.).

~~~
Argorak
Only if you speak about components. Mailpile is a complete product, so the
viral nature of it being used as a component is not a problem for the project.

The AGPL itself makes a lot of sense, as any other licenses you mention would
never have any teeth, as the software is - by nature - never distributed by
the service provider.

------
scott_karana
What's wrong with dual-licensing the project?...

~~~
wmf
An Apache/AGPL dual license is basically the same as Apache-only (thus
eliminating all the benefits of AGPL), except it would allow someone to create
an AGPL-only fork (which would probably hurt the project).

~~~
zanny
You can make an AGPL fork anyway. You cannot relicense other peoples code, but
you can make all your changes in your fork AGPL. That gives you as most user
freedom as possible for a permissively licensed project.

------
vezzy-fnord
If and once WebAssembly becomes a tool of the trade, then the AGPL might
become more relevant than ever.

~~~
jnbiche
Are you thinking of AGPL or LGPL? Seems like only the latter would be more
related to WebAssembly than regular JavaScript.

------
knabacks
Hey, i forked the current dual licensed version of mailpile on github.
[https://github.com/knabacks/Mailpile](https://github.com/knabacks/Mailpile)

~~~
HerraBRE
I wish you the best of luck with your fork! :-)

~~~
knabacks
I personally have no intention to actually work on this project. I just forked
it to create the possibility to use this project with the apache 2 licence. :)

~~~
HerraBRE
That's a shame! There were already about 600 forks in github. I'll be tagging
the branch point to make this easy for people to do later on as well.

Update: Tagged as Gunsmoke--TheLastApacheTag -
[https://github.com/mailpile/Mailpile/releases/tag/Gunsmoke--...](https://github.com/mailpile/Mailpile/releases/tag/Gunsmoke
--TheLastApacheTag) ;-)

------
DannyBee
AGPLv3 can be a bad idea for software that will be hosted internally only,
particularly if you are modifying it.

The remote network interaction clause makes no differentiation between
internal and external users. They are all just users[1]

As such, you owe all them all source to modified versions.

Why does this matter?

A lot of companies have internal systems, and temps, vendors, and contractors
who access those systems.

If those systems are (or are linked to) modified AGPL software (no matter how
small the modification), they owe the temps, vendors, and contractors access
to the source code to those systems.

That seems ... bad :)

[1] "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer
all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network ... an
opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version ... at no
charge ..."

~~~
mikekchar
Your quote is misleading. The "at no charge" refers only to providing access
to a server at no charge. If you wish you can provide the source and charge
what it costs to physically perform the copy.

The intent is to provide access to the source code for no more than what you
charged for access to the service itself. It doesn't mean that you necessarily
will be out of pocket.

Putting your changes on GitHub or the equivalent and providing a link would
satisfy the requirement completely. This is not exactly an onerous requirement
unless your intent is to keep your changes secret.

The "That seems ... bad" part, really depends on your point of view, I guess.
Letting all my temps, vendors, and contractors have access to this code means
that any of them can inspect it for problems, learn from it, fix bugs, improve
it for themselves and help others improve it.

That seems ... good ... to me, anyway.

At worst, they'll do nothing and I won't be any worse off. Of course, if I'm
relying on secret source code to obfuscate my security holes, then perhaps
I'll be in trouble, but I'm not about to do that. At best, I've turned my
users into collaborators.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think this is bad.

~~~
anon1385
>Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think this is bad.

You can't see why a Google lawyer would think it 'bad' for a temporary member
of staff to be able to receive the full source (with licence to use and
redistribute) for Google search, adwords, gmail etc etc?

------
itistoday2
Happy to see the community chose AGPL.

I'd be more OK with the Apache license if it did not contain very dangerous
language in it for contributors:

[https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/09/the-apache-
contributo...](https://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2013/09/the-apache-contributors-
license-agreement-is-very-dangerous/)

For those looking for an Apache-like license without such language, consider
the MPL 2.0.

------
oldmanjay
I'm sympathetic to the larger goals of the project, but whenever someone
starts invoking "the corporations" it's nearly always a great sign that logic
has exited the building and we are firmly in the realm of emotional reasoning.

~~~
quadrangle
"corporations" doesn't appear in the post at all.

------
meatysnapper
I read the name as "Manpile" and immediately wondered if was a service dealing
with h1bs. But then I thought it might a spoof of "Malepile", a dating site.

------
srtjstjsj
I clicked the link to see RMS's opinion, and got this:

[http://b.pagekite.me/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Feedb...](http://b.pagekite.me/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Feedback.html)

>>>

Temporarily Unavailable

The website [http://b.pagekite.me/](http://b.pagekite.me/) is unreachable at
the moment. Possible explanations:

The computer may have been turned off

The computer may be disconnected from the Internet

The PageKite program may not be running

Please try again later.

What kind of site is this?

This website connects to the World Wide Web using PageKite, a Free Software
solution for exposing "localhost" servers to the public Web.

<<<<

Not a good show of PageKite's value.

~~~
jordigh
The author just messed up the link. I contacted him on IRC, and he just fixed
it:

[https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Fe...](https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2015-06-15_Community_License_Feedback.html)

