3 ms·

The first paragraph of section 13 of AGPLv3 reads: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provisio

The first paragraph of section 13 of AGPLv3 reads: 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.

phyzome 7y ago
Mmm, I agree. I think I got tripped up by this line: > That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL, but outside FSF, also to licenses that simply require sharing back whether you distribute your work or not. ...because I read it as "the AGPL requires sharing back whether you distribute your work or not", and felt like splitting hairs for the case where you expose the work, but only internally to a group. Are there licenses that say if you run an altered copy, you have to contribute back sources, no matter who interacts with it?
- kemitchell 7y ago
  > I read it as "the AGPL requires sharing back whether you distribute your work or not" That's true, insofar as providing as a service isn't "distributing", or in (A)GPLv3-speak, "conveying". See section 13 of AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 Compare how the Open Software License handles network services: by requiring they be treated as "distribution". https://zoo.kemitchell.com/OSL-3.0#5 https://zoo.kemitchell.com/OSL-3.0#5 > Are there licenses that say if you run an altered copy, you have to contribute back sources, no matter who interacts with it? For an older license of this type, have a look at RPL-1.5. For a newer one, which I led, have a look at Parity.

phyzome 7y ago

Mmm, I agree. I think I got tripped up by this line: > That led eventually to AGPL, a kind of fork of GPL, but outside FSF, also to licenses that simply require sharing back whether you distribute your work or not. ...because I read it as "the AGPL requires sharing back whether you distribute your work or not", and felt like splitting hairs for the case where you expose the work, but only internally to a group. Are there licenses that say if you run an altered copy, you have to contribute back sources, no matter who interacts with it?

kemitchell 7y ago
> I read it as "the AGPL requires sharing back whether you distribute your work or not" That's true, insofar as providing as a service isn't "distributing", or in (A)GPLv3-speak, "conveying". See section 13 of AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 Compare how the Open Software License handles network services: by requiring they be treated as "distribution". https://zoo.kemitchell.com/OSL-3.0#5 https://zoo.kemitchell.com/OSL-3.0#5 > Are there licenses that say if you run an altered copy, you have to contribute back sources, no matter who interacts with it? For an older license of this type, have a look at RPL-1.5. For a newer one, which I led, have a look at Parity.