5 ms·

So they didn’t bother and shut down the site. Well that’s fine I suppose

ginko 6y ago
Wouldn't they still have to release the source code retroactively for hosting previously? Not sure how the AGPL handles this.
- rcxdude 6y ago
  Probably not. The consequence of violating the (A)GPL is you lose the right to use, distribute, and modify the software. They could in principle be sued because they were violating the license while the website is up but you'd need to demonstrate losses and you couldn't force the release, only get some compensation (though you could try to use that as leverage to settle for the release of the code). (IANAL, etc)
  - tpxl 6y ago
    >you'd need to demonstrate losses Aren't losses trivial to demonstrate: You didn't get the source code. And in the happy case you can be made whole just by them releasing the code, which is easy if it wasn't modified such that it contains proprietary shit.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      Losses are paid in money. So you need to specify a certain monetary value and have the court to agree. While it would be the easiest for settling the case to just release the modified source, I don't think you can enforce that.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    Right, I think that is a common misconception. A license like the AGPL cannot force people to release their modifications, it can only force people not using the AGPL-licensed software. At best you can sue for damages due to unlicensed usage.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    > you'd need to demonstrate losses Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances there may also be statutory damages, punitive damages and exemplary damages.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  No
- madjam002 6y ago
  Doesn't AGPL only _require_ you to distribute the source code when requested? Sure they violated it when the author requested the source code, but surely you'd need to demonstrate that other requests were made over the duration of when the site was up where they refused to provide the source code.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    You also have to notify that it is under the AGPL and provide access (e.g. a link) to the license. Technically the source code could be behind an ask-wall though.
- dspillett 6y ago
  IIRC (A)GPL stipulates that you need to make available source, on request, to the people who use your version. This is often interpreted as you need to release publicly, but that is not the case. If I'm remembering rightly then the author can't make them give him a copy of the code at this point, but one of their users could. If they have/had no users that care, there is no more that they need to do. Unless the author having visited their site counts as them being a user of the code protected by the license, then it swings back the other way.
  - aronpye 6y ago
    Don’t you always have to provide author attribution and a link to the licence?
    - dspillett 6y ago
      Many less restrictive open source licenses require attribution, that is far from unique to GPL flavours.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    Visiting the site probably counts as using it. I think to get around that there would need to be a separate paywall
    - toyg 6y ago
      “Visiting the site” does not count as distributing it under the GPL: “ Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying”. If you don’t distribute the work, you don’t need to provide sources.
      - justinclift 6y ago
        The case here is the AGPL though, not the GPL.
        6y ago

Wouldn't they still have to release the source code retroactively for hosting previously? Not sure how the AGPL handles this.

rcxdude 6y ago
Probably not. The consequence of violating the (A)GPL is you lose the right to use, distribute, and modify the software. They could in principle be sued because they were violating the license while the website is up but you'd need to demonstrate losses and you couldn't force the release, only get some compensation (though you could try to use that as leverage to settle for the release of the code). (IANAL, etc)
- tpxl 6y ago
  >you'd need to demonstrate losses Aren't losses trivial to demonstrate: You didn't get the source code. And in the happy case you can be made whole just by them releasing the code, which is easy if it wasn't modified such that it contains proprietary shit.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    Losses are paid in money. So you need to specify a certain monetary value and have the court to agree. While it would be the easiest for settling the case to just release the modified source, I don't think you can enforce that.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Right, I think that is a common misconception. A license like the AGPL cannot force people to release their modifications, it can only force people not using the AGPL-licensed software. At best you can sue for damages due to unlicensed usage.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > you'd need to demonstrate losses Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances there may also be statutory damages, punitive damages and exemplary damages.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
No
madjam002 6y ago
Doesn't AGPL only _require_ you to distribute the source code when requested? Sure they violated it when the author requested the source code, but surely you'd need to demonstrate that other requests were made over the duration of when the site was up where they refused to provide the source code.
- garmaine 6y ago
  You also have to notify that it is under the AGPL and provide access (e.g. a link) to the license. Technically the source code could be behind an ask-wall though.
dspillett 6y ago
IIRC (A)GPL stipulates that you need to make available source, on request, to the people who use your version. This is often interpreted as you need to release publicly, but that is not the case. If I'm remembering rightly then the author can't make them give him a copy of the code at this point, but one of their users could. If they have/had no users that care, there is no more that they need to do. Unless the author having visited their site counts as them being a user of the code protected by the license, then it swings back the other way.
- aronpye 6y ago
  Don’t you always have to provide author attribution and a link to the licence?
  - dspillett 6y ago
    Many less restrictive open source licenses require attribution, that is far from unique to GPL flavours.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  Visiting the site probably counts as using it. I think to get around that there would need to be a separate paywall
  - toyg 6y ago
    “Visiting the site” does not count as distributing it under the GPL: “ Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying”. If you don’t distribute the work, you don’t need to provide sources.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      The case here is the AGPL though, not the GPL.
      - 6y ago