3 ms·

You seem to have trouble understanding that copyright is irrelevant to determining who the users of the software are. The users are the ones using the software.

You seem to have trouble understanding that copyright is irrelevant to determining who the users of the software are. The users are the ones using the software. That there is a network between them and the software they're using is irrelevant. Does it make sense now?

marcan_42 6y ago
So you're saying that the license does not impose restrictions on users of the software, but I am not the user, so it can impose restrictions on me? Then what am I, and why does the license get to impose restrictions on me beyond copyright obligations without violating Freedom Zero? You're grasping at straws here. There's provisions based on copyright, and then there's everything else. Redefining users to exclude the person running the server and implying that means the person running the server loses all rights under the Free Software definition is ludicrous.
- jordigh 6y ago
  You are free to run our hypotheticlly AGPLed nginx for whatever purpose you want. You can serve a military website or an online shop from our hypothetically AGPLed nginx. There are no limitations on usage. You are the user as long as you are operating and using nginx. Once you serve to other users, though, they also become users of nginx. In this regard, you have an upstream/downstream relationship between you and the other users of nginx that you've made users by giving them access over the network. You are still free to use nginx for your military website or your online shop or whatever. Your usage of nginx has not been restricted for any purpose. By granting network accesss to our hypothetically AGPLed nginx, though, you now have an AGPL obligation to provide a link to the source code of nginx, in case you modified that source yourself. This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. You wouldn't have the right to even serve nginx to other users or to modify its source code if it weren't for the AGPL. None of this is substantially different from the GPL except for the method of interaction with the software.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    > This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. Note that a shrink-wrap end-user license agreement from Adobe also doesn't take away your rights; it only grants you rights. At least, according to copyright rhetoric.
    - marcan_42 6y ago
      This is not correct. Those agreements are based on the idea that your license to use the copyrighted software is predicated on accepting a large number of conditions outside of copyright. Merely receiving a license-free piece of software (i.e. "all rights reserved") with no strings attached gives you a certain set of default rights (i.e. anything not in violation of copyright), such as to run it for any purpose. EULAs like a shrink-wrap agreement from Adobe, or the AGPL, then attempt to remove some of those rights. Though, sure, you can look at it from the point of view that in the absence of a license at all, nobody would've been able to distribute the software to you in the first place, and therefore you'd have had no rights as a result.
      - kazinator 6y ago
        The doctrine under copyright law is that you have no right to have a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. From that basis, various forms of asshole on the face of this Earth, and their lawyers, have come up with various licenses that inject all sorts of behavioral conditions, far outside of the scope of copyright law, on the granting of a permission for you to have a copy. The idea is to turn the non-compliance with those conditions into copyright infringment. "Oh, you're violating clause 37? And still have a copy of the work? That's not allowed! You must comply, or else destroy the copy!"
kazinator 6y ago
Copyright is irrelevant also because you are not redistributing the program to those users (and possibly not at all). Yet, the copyright law is what the AGPL is trying to wield as its basis. It does not seem valid. Has anyone tested it in court? I don't think that copyright can assert use restrictions. You cannot say that someone is not authorized to have a copy of something if they do not use it in such and such a way. It's exactly like a "license" written in the flap of a book which says that you must read only the even-numbered pages. If you read any odd-numbered page, then you are breaching the license under which you're permitted to have a copy, and must destroy the book. I would cheerfully deploy a modified AGPL program and not reveal the code to anyone. Nothing would happen at all. I'm surprised Google are so allergic to the AGPL. If it came down to it, they could crush this bullshit in court like swatting a mosquito.

marcan_42 6y ago

So you're saying that the license does not impose restrictions on users of the software, but I am not the user, so it can impose restrictions on me? Then what am I, and why does the license get to impose restrictions on me beyond copyright obligations without violating Freedom Zero? You're grasping at straws here. There's provisions based on copyright, and then there's everything else. Redefining users to exclude the person running the server and implying that means the person running the server loses all rights under the Free Software definition is ludicrous.

jordigh 6y ago
You are free to run our hypotheticlly AGPLed nginx for whatever purpose you want. You can serve a military website or an online shop from our hypothetically AGPLed nginx. There are no limitations on usage. You are the user as long as you are operating and using nginx. Once you serve to other users, though, they also become users of nginx. In this regard, you have an upstream/downstream relationship between you and the other users of nginx that you've made users by giving them access over the network. You are still free to use nginx for your military website or your online shop or whatever. Your usage of nginx has not been restricted for any purpose. By granting network accesss to our hypothetically AGPLed nginx, though, you now have an AGPL obligation to provide a link to the source code of nginx, in case you modified that source yourself. This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. You wouldn't have the right to even serve nginx to other users or to modify its source code if it weren't for the AGPL. None of this is substantially different from the GPL except for the method of interaction with the software.
- kazinator 6y ago
  > This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. Note that a shrink-wrap end-user license agreement from Adobe also doesn't take away your rights; it only grants you rights. At least, according to copyright rhetoric.
  - marcan_42 6y ago
    This is not correct. Those agreements are based on the idea that your license to use the copyrighted software is predicated on accepting a large number of conditions outside of copyright. Merely receiving a license-free piece of software (i.e. "all rights reserved") with no strings attached gives you a certain set of default rights (i.e. anything not in violation of copyright), such as to run it for any purpose. EULAs like a shrink-wrap agreement from Adobe, or the AGPL, then attempt to remove some of those rights. Though, sure, you can look at it from the point of view that in the absence of a license at all, nobody would've been able to distribute the software to you in the first place, and therefore you'd have had no rights as a result.
    - kazinator 6y ago
      The doctrine under copyright law is that you have no right to have a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. From that basis, various forms of asshole on the face of this Earth, and their lawyers, have come up with various licenses that inject all sorts of behavioral conditions, far outside of the scope of copyright law, on the granting of a permission for you to have a copy. The idea is to turn the non-compliance with those conditions into copyright infringment. "Oh, you're violating clause 37? And still have a copy of the work? That's not allowed! You must comply, or else destroy the copy!"

kazinator 6y ago

Copyright is irrelevant also because you are not redistributing the program to those users (and possibly not at all). Yet, the copyright law is what the AGPL is trying to wield as its basis. It does not seem valid. Has anyone tested it in court? I don't think that copyright can assert use restrictions. You cannot say that someone is not authorized to have a copy of something if they do not use it in such and such a way. It's exactly like a "license" written in the flap of a book which says that you must read only the even-numbered pages. If you read any odd-numbered page, then you are breaching the license under which you're permitted to have a copy, and must destroy the book. I would cheerfully deploy a modified AGPL program and not reveal the code to anyone. Nothing would happen at all. I'm surprised Google are so allergic to the AGPL. If it came down to it, they could crush this bullshit in court like swatting a mosquito.