4 ms·

I think you should read more about the licence before criticizing it so harshely. AGPL was created as an answer of this exact loophole that existed in the origi

by boudin 6y ago

I think you should read more about the licence before criticizing it so harshely. AGPL was created as an answer of this exact loophole that existed in the original GPL. Not saying that those licences are perfect an there is definitely grey areas, but what you are stating is not true.

marcan_42 6y ago
Please read my comment more carefully before claiming what I said isn't true. The "loophole" in the GPL is that you can modify the software, then only provide access to it, not a copy of it, and the users do not need to receive the modified software, because the GPL is a copyright license and has no bearing on what you can and cannot do as long as you don't copy the software itself. (Whether this is a "loophole" or a desirable property is very much open to individual opinion) What the AGPL does is say "Aha! If you modify the software and make it remotely available to users, then you must share your changes with them anyway!". And thus the loophole now becomes: modify the software, give it to someone (but nobody else), and then they can provide access to it as a service, without distributing the software itself, because they didn't modify it so the clause doesn't apply to them. But maybe your interpretation (of the very vague clause 13 of the AGPL) is that the fact that the software was modified "sticks" even after you give it to someone else. In that case, as soon as anyone contributes changes upstream, then upstream becomes a "modified" version and all users of the software are now required to offer source code to anyone they provide access to it to, regardless of whether they themselves have modified it. So you get to decide: either the AGPL can be trivially bypassed, or it actually requires all users of the software (in normal open source contribution models) to prominently advertise that to anyone they offer remote access to, modified or not. What's your interpretation? What will a judge's be? Neither of the two are what was intended, anyway.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Logically what you actually do is you ask a lawyer to tell you what a judge would probably say in order to spend merely hundreds to low thousands instead of 10s of hundreds of thousands embroiled in lawsuits. You could also spend nothing and adhere to the strictest letter and spirit of the law instead of trying to get away with something.

by boudin 6y ago

marcan_42 6y ago

Please read my comment more carefully before claiming what I said isn't true. The "loophole" in the GPL is that you can modify the software, then only provide access to it, not a copy of it, and the users do not need to receive the modified software, because the GPL is a copyright license and has no bearing on what you can and cannot do as long as you don't copy the software itself. (Whether this is a "loophole" or a desirable property is very much open to individual opinion) What the AGPL does is say "Aha! If you modify the software and make it remotely available to users, then you must share your changes with them anyway!". And thus the loophole now becomes: modify the software, give it to someone (but nobody else), and then they can provide access to it as a service, without distributing the software itself, because they didn't modify it so the clause doesn't apply to them. But maybe your interpretation (of the very vague clause 13 of the AGPL) is that the fact that the software was modified "sticks" even after you give it to someone else. In that case, as soon as anyone contributes changes upstream, then upstream becomes a "modified" version and all users of the software are now required to offer source code to anyone they provide access to it to, regardless of whether they themselves have modified it. So you get to decide: either the AGPL can be trivially bypassed, or it actually requires all users of the software (in normal open source contribution models) to prominently advertise that to anyone they offer remote access to, modified or not. What's your interpretation? What will a judge's be? Neither of the two are what was intended, anyway.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Logically what you actually do is you ask a lawyer to tell you what a judge would probably say in order to spend merely hundreds to low thousands instead of 10s of hundreds of thousands embroiled in lawsuits. You could also spend nothing and adhere to the strictest letter and spirit of the law instead of trying to get away with something.