WhatsApp's interoperability agreement doesn't allow GNU (A|L)GPL licenses
WhatsApp's interoperability agreement doesn't allow GNU (A|L)GPL licenses
Enable users of your app in Europe to exchange messages with other WhatsApp users in Europe, ensuring compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Relevant parts:
Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses or any software licensed under the General Public Licence or any similar licence (e.g. GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)) containing a "copyleft" requirement during performance of the Services.
Partner shall not: (i) combine Sublicensed Encryption Software with any software licensed under any version of or derivative of the GNU General Public License (e.g.; GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) in any manner that could cause, or could be interpreted or asserted to cause, the Sublicensed Encryption Software or any modifications to the Sublicensed Encryption Software to become subject to the terms of any version of or derivative of the GNU General Public License or other copyleft open source software
What is that bs? So they only interoperate with closed source, for profit services or what? I hope the EU rips them a new one.
All the closed source for profit services that might be relevant already said that this crippled access is of no interest, and the only ones left (Matrix and some hobbiists) will be likely prevented from ever using it by these legal shenanigans. Malicious compliance accomplished 😒
Well, the DSA goes in the right direction so I am still hopeful. Feel free to write to your representative how exactly these laws need to be changed. Be the change you want to see.
No, just GPL licensed source.
MIT, BSD, Apache, and all the other OSI licenses are fair game.
I just hope the elections in June don't get the EU a parliament of right wingers dead set on "smaller government" and "free market". Given that EU citizens are just humans and very influenced by the republicans of the USA, it wouldn't surprise me though. Let us enjoy what could've been while 30% of the population ignores its democratic duty and 60% give in to USAian + Russian propaganda 🍷
I hope so too but we have to admit that it is hard enough for a lot of people to get by so besides going to protests and talking, I cant fret too much about it anymore or I risk permanent damage to my life which wont bring anyone any good.
I have since blocked all american politics and topics that I cant change and dont have the energy to advocate for. My family and community need me for a couple years longer so I have to choose my fights. Sorry if thats not enough for you.
Not to mention that interoperability is limited to EU (EEA to be specific)
Just dual-license your software under the TNGPL (Totally Not GPL) license that just so happens to afford the same protections.
Fun fact: the GPL license is itself under copyright, held by the FSF, and subject to certain conditions. That's why there's only one "GPL" and it remains the same and everybody can rely on what's in it.
Besides, they did mention that derived licenses or any copyleft licenses are not ok either.
They actually did not. They clearly state (at least in the text posted by the OP) that you are not allowed to license under a version or derivative of the GPL if it would end up copyleft. The main condition is that it is licensed under a version of the GPL.
(To be clear, I'm talking about the second quote, about combining)
Pardon me, but would this not interfere with partners' ability to host services via 99% of Linux-based servers?
No, running software on GPL licensed systems does not make the guest software GPL.
But, The AGPL is “infectious”, and one bit of AGPL can make your entire project subject to the AGPL. It’s a legal nightmare and many businesses outright ban the use of AGPL software.
Presumably, they’ve just blanket banned GPL to avoid any ambiguity.
i THINK they’re saying that they sublicense a library to do encryption in order to talk to WhatsApp and that it’s this software that they won’t be allowed to be included in GPL-licensed software because it may be that in the future that implies a release of source code?
this doesn’t seem unreasonable as long as you can create a facade or abstraction that’s NOT GPL-licensed to interact with WhatsApp that then interacts with your GPL code?
or i could be misreading entirely
Does this mean that the Eclipse Public License is allowed (unless GPL is listed as a "Secondary License") but the Mozilla Public License is not allowed (unless "Incompatible With Secondary Licenses")?
This looks written to protect against copyleft infection. It's probably fine to link.
otherwise make accessible
This sounds very, very broad. Broad enough for at least a chilling effect.
I'm not a lawyer, but under the definition of "Infrastructure" on page 5, they state that they will construe WhatsApp Infrastructure and Partner Infrastructure accordingly, which to my untrained eye is prima facie evidence to their acknowledgement that these are separate systems, at least one (the Partner's) of which is not under their custodianship and not named as subject of the first stipulation you quoted. In other words "do not make it so WhatsApp's own infrastructure would run GPL material" and potentially "do not send GPL material through our systems"
The second one I interpret to mean "nothing with licenses that apply that runtime operation is copy left"
Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses
The technical definition of a "computer virus" is actually quite narrow, and true viruses are rare these days because they are passive and slow compared to more modern malware types.
A strict, literal reading of the text says that all other kinds of malware are acceptable.
Paragraph 3.1.5. expands on that though:
To transmit, send or upload any material that contains viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time-bombs, keystroke loggers, spyware, adware or any other harmful programs or similar computer code designed to adversely affect the operation of any computer software or hardware.