4 ms·
I don't fully understand the context, but I'm guessing that if you provide a service using software that's AGPL licensed and use Square to sell it, they have no
by joelhaasnoot 7y ago
I don't fully understand the context, but I'm guessing that if you provide a service using software that's AGPL licensed and use Square to sell it, they have no way of complying to the AGPL terms of providing end users (your customers) with the source code and/or a link to it.
- Illniyar 7y agoThe service provider might be breaking the AGPL, but square isn't liable. It isn' using the AGPL it self and isn't a party to the copyright contract.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoIf they need to redistribute some AGPL content they are liable.
- Illniyar 7y agoI don' see square having any service that offers fulfillment (for example where you can download your order). Even if they do though it would be a stretch to hold them liable, it's like requiring github to be agpled if you upload your agpl code there.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoThis is for their store system: https://squareup.com/us/en/online-store https://squareup.com/us/en/online-store
- eesmith 7y agoI have two problems with accepting that as a correct interpretation: 1) they place no restrictions on any other license. What if I use the Server Side Public License, or something else with a similar requirement to distribute? 2) the specifically say "v3", while the original AGPL also had that requirement. I, like Illniyar, also think the AGPLv3 doesn't have that interpretation in the first place. At what point would Square have accepted the copyright license?