3 ms·

The AGPL closes no such loophole. It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network, e.g. in the case

by avar 10y ago

The AGPL closes no such loophole. It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network, e.g. in the case of an open source web application. This is something the GPL itself goes out of its way to allow (unless your output is the program itself). So it falls squarely under distributing the program, which you didn't have permission to do without the license itself. > But not if your usage includes building upon it[...] Building upon it & distributing the result, but yes, this is what OSS is great for, but unrelated to my point that you as a user can completely ignore the license & don't have to know about it. You can just follow standard copyright law.

reitanqild 10y ago
It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network, e.g. in the case of an open source web application. Don't you confuse "distribute" and "let users interact with" now? IIRC AGPL doesn't make a distinction about whether i send the bytes of the program over the network (distribute the program) or let a user send input and receive output to/from it (interact with the program).
smsm42 10y ago
> It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network Are you missing the difference between distributing the program and distributing its result? The latter lands firmly into "usage" category. > So it falls squarely under distributing the program No it doesn't. This claim makes zero sense - it's like saying if I send somebody a Word document it's the same as if I sent them a copy of Word. That's baloney. > you as a user can completely ignore the license & don't have to know about it. Looks like you somehow ignored the whole comment. Again, only if "user" means "never modifying or building on it", which in OSS world is a very restrictive condition. > You can just follow standard copyright law. Did you just claim "following standard copyright law" and "ignoring the license" is the same and both things are easy and obvious? There are people that get literally thousands to millions of dollars income by helping people to "follow standard copyright law". It's not something that you can follow just by going on with your business - it's insanely complicated and dense set of laws (actually, a lot of sets since we're in a global world now and each country has their own) and dismissing having to comply with it as "just follow the standard" is plain ignorant. Of course, if you're a random Joe or Joann, the chance that somebody would come after you is low (though see Prenda Law case), but if you have any money riding on it, be assured it's very far from "just ignore everything and follow the standard" - you don't even know what the standard law is unless you're a lawyer, and unless you also spent time studying caselaw and such (or asked a lawyer), you have very little chance of getting it right.
- avar 10y ago
  > Are you missing the difference between > distributing the program and distributing > its result? The latter lands firmly into > "usage" category. [...] it's like saying if > I send somebody a Word document it's the > same as if I sent them a copy of > Word. That's baloney. The AGPL is meant to cover the cases where the "output" is what the program itself does. E.g. free software web applications like bug trackers, wikis etc. So the analogy is not sending someone a Word document being like distributing Word, neither the APGL or the GPL cover that. It's setting up a paid-for VNC service where users can access your copy of Word. The GPL explicitly permits this sort of thing, because it's quite lax about defining network interaction, the AGPL is more strict. > Again, only if "user" means "never modifying > or building on it", which in OSS world is a > very restrictive condition. Copyright law has no purview over whether you modify or build on something, and neither can any free software license. I can modify and build on any software I have that I haven't signed a contract to obtain, copyright law only comes into play when I want to distribute the software in any way. If and when I've done that whether I've modified or built on it has little bearing on whether I'm committing copyright infringement. > Did you just claim "following standard > copyright law" and "ignoring the license" is > the same and both things are easy and > obvious? I really can't see how you've read this thread and somehow become this confused. All I'm doing here is correcting WBrentWilliams's misconception that free software licenses are somehow something you need to get end-users to agree to before they use freely licensed software. That this isn't how things work is something the GPL itself explicitly states. The same applies to any free software license, the GPL just happens to be a rather verbose license which goes out of its way to explain the basics of copyright law to you.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Copyright law has no purview over whether you modify or build on something, and neither can any free software license. I can modify and build on any software I have that I haven't signed a contract to obtain, copyright law only comes into play when I want to distribute the software in any way. False; copyright law makes it an exclusive right of the copyright holder to make copies and derivative works (the former is where the name "copyright"—the right to copy—comes from); distributing them may increase the likelihood of damages or other penalties beyond whatever minimum statutory damages exist for such a violation, but it is not the root violation that brings copyright law into play.

by avar 10y ago

reitanqild 10y ago

It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network, e.g. in the case of an open source web application. Don't you confuse "distribute" and "let users interact with" now? IIRC AGPL doesn't make a distinction about whether i send the bytes of the program over the network (distribute the program) or let a user send input and receive output to/from it (interact with the program).

smsm42 10y ago

> It says you must make the source available if you distribute the output of the program itself over a network Are you missing the difference between distributing the program and distributing its result? The latter lands firmly into "usage" category. > So it falls squarely under distributing the program No it doesn't. This claim makes zero sense - it's like saying if I send somebody a Word document it's the same as if I sent them a copy of Word. That's baloney. > you as a user can completely ignore the license & don't have to know about it. Looks like you somehow ignored the whole comment. Again, only if "user" means "never modifying or building on it", which in OSS world is a very restrictive condition. > You can just follow standard copyright law. Did you just claim "following standard copyright law" and "ignoring the license" is the same and both things are easy and obvious? There are people that get literally thousands to millions of dollars income by helping people to "follow standard copyright law". It's not something that you can follow just by going on with your business - it's insanely complicated and dense set of laws (actually, a lot of sets since we're in a global world now and each country has their own) and dismissing having to comply with it as "just follow the standard" is plain ignorant. Of course, if you're a random Joe or Joann, the chance that somebody would come after you is low (though see Prenda Law case), but if you have any money riding on it, be assured it's very far from "just ignore everything and follow the standard" - you don't even know what the standard law is unless you're a lawyer, and unless you also spent time studying caselaw and such (or asked a lawyer), you have very little chance of getting it right.

avar 10y ago
> Are you missing the difference between > distributing the program and distributing > its result? The latter lands firmly into > "usage" category. [...] it's like saying if > I send somebody a Word document it's the > same as if I sent them a copy of > Word. That's baloney. The AGPL is meant to cover the cases where the "output" is what the program itself does. E.g. free software web applications like bug trackers, wikis etc. So the analogy is not sending someone a Word document being like distributing Word, neither the APGL or the GPL cover that. It's setting up a paid-for VNC service where users can access your copy of Word. The GPL explicitly permits this sort of thing, because it's quite lax about defining network interaction, the AGPL is more strict. > Again, only if "user" means "never modifying > or building on it", which in OSS world is a > very restrictive condition. Copyright law has no purview over whether you modify or build on something, and neither can any free software license. I can modify and build on any software I have that I haven't signed a contract to obtain, copyright law only comes into play when I want to distribute the software in any way. If and when I've done that whether I've modified or built on it has little bearing on whether I'm committing copyright infringement. > Did you just claim "following standard > copyright law" and "ignoring the license" is > the same and both things are easy and > obvious? I really can't see how you've read this thread and somehow become this confused. All I'm doing here is correcting WBrentWilliams's misconception that free software licenses are somehow something you need to get end-users to agree to before they use freely licensed software. That this isn't how things work is something the GPL itself explicitly states. The same applies to any free software license, the GPL just happens to be a rather verbose license which goes out of its way to explain the basics of copyright law to you.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Copyright law has no purview over whether you modify or build on something, and neither can any free software license. I can modify and build on any software I have that I haven't signed a contract to obtain, copyright law only comes into play when I want to distribute the software in any way. False; copyright law makes it an exclusive right of the copyright holder to make copies and derivative works (the former is where the name "copyright"—the right to copy—comes from); distributing them may increase the likelihood of damages or other penalties beyond whatever minimum statutory damages exist for such a violation, but it is not the root violation that brings copyright law into play.