4 ms·

There is little uncertainty -- the terms are in plain language. OP implied that the GNU Affero GPLv3 is an updated GPLv3 "in spirit" to reflect how today a lot

by niftich 10y ago

There is little uncertainty -- the terms are in plain language. OP implied that the GNU Affero GPLv3 is an updated GPLv3 "in spirit" to reflect how today a lot of software is run on the backend, instead of distributed to clients directly. I believe this is an accurate characterization. Compare the GNU GPLv3 and the GNU Affero GPLv3 yourself [1]. [1] https://www.diffchecker.com/1J4xEohZ https://www.diffchecker.com/1J4xEohZ

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> There is little uncertainty -- the terms are in plain language Just because a license says something does not mean that everybody interprets it the same way or that the clauses are valid in it. The "Remote Network Interaction" section has never made it to court and there are countless different interpretations one can draw from this.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- niftich 10y ago
  Deploy some game theory here. Regardless of what the drafters of GNU Affero GPLv3 intended, there are really four outcomes here (with wording since edited for clarity): Precondition: Take a GNU Affero GPv3 product, modify it, and expose it over a network, directly or by proxy, over a network, for users to use. Your four possibilities: (1) If you provide source, and the courts uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're fine. (2) If you don't provide source, and the courts uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're screwed. (3) If you provide source, and the courts don't uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're fine, but you would've been fine not providing the code in retrospect. (4) If you don't provide source, and the courts don't uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you've defeated the GNU Affero GPLv3 in court. You can absolutely make the argument for or against the business risks of releasing source code, but you can't make the argument for 'uncertainty'.
geofft 10y ago
What does "interacting with it remotely through a computer network" mean? If I take some caching algorithm from RethinkDB and put it in my fork of OpenSSL, do I have to make it possible for everyone who connects to my SSL server to download the source of my fork? Do I need to start stuffing the URL of corresponding source into my certificate? I'd hope the answer is no, but what in the license makes it clear that the answer is no?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- manarth 10y ago
  In general, it's takes a court decision to make it clear - set a precedent - on what's expected. As the AGPL hasn't been tested in court, we're all mostly guessing.

by niftich 10y ago

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

> There is little uncertainty -- the terms are in plain language Just because a license says something does not mean that everybody interprets it the same way or that the clauses are valid in it. The "Remote Network Interaction" section has never made it to court and there are countless different interpretations one can draw from this.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
niftich 10y ago
Deploy some game theory here. Regardless of what the drafters of GNU Affero GPLv3 intended, there are really four outcomes here (with wording since edited for clarity): Precondition: Take a GNU Affero GPv3 product, modify it, and expose it over a network, directly or by proxy, over a network, for users to use. Your four possibilities: (1) If you provide source, and the courts uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're fine. (2) If you don't provide source, and the courts uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're screwed. (3) If you provide source, and the courts don't uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you're fine, but you would've been fine not providing the code in retrospect. (4) If you don't provide source, and the courts don't uphold the 'Remote Network Interaction' clause: you've defeated the GNU Affero GPLv3 in court. You can absolutely make the argument for or against the business risks of releasing source code, but you can't make the argument for 'uncertainty'.

geofft 10y ago

What does "interacting with it remotely through a computer network" mean? If I take some caching algorithm from RethinkDB and put it in my fork of OpenSSL, do I have to make it possible for everyone who connects to my SSL server to download the source of my fork? Do I need to start stuffing the URL of corresponding source into my certificate? I'd hope the answer is no, but what in the license makes it clear that the answer is no?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
manarth 10y ago
In general, it's takes a court decision to make it clear - set a precedent - on what's expected. As the AGPL hasn't been tested in court, we're all mostly guessing.