2 ms·
Yes. AGPL attempts to infect with copyleft all services it is integrated with, so contractually prohibiting AGPL integrations is the only defense against AGPL i
by floatingatoll 7y ago
Yes. AGPL attempts to infect with copyleft all services it is integrated with, so contractually prohibiting AGPL integrations is the only defense against AGPL infections.
- singron 7y agoThis is a common misunderstanding of the AGPL. It has the same combined work rules as the GPL. It just has the additional condition that a modified work offered as a network service must make the corresponding source available. If the AGPL program is unmodified, you don't have to share its corresponding source no matter what it is integrated with. If the AGPL program is modified, you only have to offer the corresponding source of that program, not all programs that connect to it over the network.
- floatingatoll 7y agoSo, then, since Square’s application is a work, if an AGPL service interacts with it to modify Square’s work, your assertion is that this does not count as a modification introducing AGPL responsibilities. That’s useful to consider, but it doesn’t reassure me enough to remove the risk altogether. I would, if I were a coder in Square’s position, acknowledge this explanation and then very likely still move to deny AGPL interactions as a whole rather than try to finesse the exact legality as described. I care a lot about licensing but I also want to get work done without fear of AGPL lawsuits.