3 ms·

I looked it up. Agpl is meant to close the loophole whereby, you know Google can use GPL tools while they index the web but I can't demand a copy of their priv

I looked it up. Agpl is meant to close the loophole whereby, you know Google can use GPL tools while they index the web but I can't demand a copy of their private repos source code, since I just get to use the result (over the web). Agpl closes this loophole. I think gpl is enough for web apps. I don't think I should have the right to demand all of gmail's or google search's server-side code if they use but don't distribute gpl software as part of making it. But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code. I would absolutely demand that anyone working for me not use any agpl software. I think it would taint even the copywrite on a logo. Maybe I would be tainted by publishing a document they wrote in an agpl text editor, even if they license it to me. Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong.

snvzz 7y ago
>But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code. This is an outrageous claim. Citation needed.
- logicallee 7y ago
  Dude, I literally didn't know what agpl is. I found: >Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong. after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. It's a summary. if you put up a web app where you modify open source software as part of your stack, you have to publish those changes if people ask for them. Even if you are not distributing those changes. (This is my impression.) I look forward to a correction from an expert - it's why I posted what I found. (Yes, what I found was outrageous.)
  - snvzz 7y ago
    >It's a summary. if you put up a web app where you modify open source software as part of your stack, you have to publish those changes if people ask for them Only specifically your changes to AGPL code, but otherwise correct. This is reasonably well described on GNU's own page[0] on the AGPL. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
    - logicallee 7y ago
      Well I shouldn't have to publish them, if I'm not distributing that software. Your private forks are private, even if you produce something using them. You can't taint that production or force someone to publish changes they don't want to publish and aren't distributing. You are saying if a textbook publisher modifies open source layout software then uses it to set a textbook, they can't retain those internal modifications if someone asks to see them. I think they should be able to keep them private.
  - singron 7y ago
    > after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. Honestly we should be downvoting comments like these more. The AGPLv3 isn't new and the original text isn't that long. We don't need incorrect third hand summaries of the license text with additional wild speculation and unfounded advice. Everyone writes comments here like they are an authority on every topic, but it's a good reminder that many authoritative-sounding comments aren't any better than gossip. Basically everyone I've talked to has an incorrect understanding of the AGPL and it's not because the original text is ambiguous (although there are parts that are ambiguous). It's because people read and write bad summaries and until the common knowledge is completely wrong. Here is a good summary: the AGPLv3 is essentially the GPLv3 with the addition of section 13: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

snvzz 7y ago

>But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code. This is an outrageous claim. Citation needed.

logicallee 7y ago
Dude, I literally didn't know what agpl is. I found: >Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong. after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. It's a summary. if you put up a web app where you modify open source software as part of your stack, you have to publish those changes if people ask for them. Even if you are not distributing those changes. (This is my impression.) I look forward to a correction from an expert - it's why I posted what I found. (Yes, what I found was outrageous.)
- snvzz 7y ago
  >It's a summary. if you put up a web app where you modify open source software as part of your stack, you have to publish those changes if people ask for them Only specifically your changes to AGPL code, but otherwise correct. This is reasonably well described on GNU's own page[0] on the AGPL. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
  - logicallee 7y ago
    Well I shouldn't have to publish them, if I'm not distributing that software. Your private forks are private, even if you produce something using them. You can't taint that production or force someone to publish changes they don't want to publish and aren't distributing. You are saying if a textbook publisher modifies open source layout software then uses it to set a textbook, they can't retain those internal modifications if someone asks to see them. I think they should be able to keep them private.
- singron 7y ago
  > after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. Honestly we should be downvoting comments like these more. The AGPLv3 isn't new and the original text isn't that long. We don't need incorrect third hand summaries of the license text with additional wild speculation and unfounded advice. Everyone writes comments here like they are an authority on every topic, but it's a good reminder that many authoritative-sounding comments aren't any better than gossip. Basically everyone I've talked to has an incorrect understanding of the AGPL and it's not because the original text is ambiguous (although there are parts that are ambiguous). It's because people read and write bad summaries and until the common knowledge is completely wrong. Here is a good summary: the AGPLv3 is essentially the GPLv3 with the addition of section 13: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.