5 ms·

The site is no longer violating the AGPL, so in that sense it's fixed, but there's no mention of consequences for the 3 years of continued violation.

• kazinator 6y ago
  What could the consequences be, other than the awarding of damages? It's not easy to calculate actual damages for the three years of use, because the violation was only that the modified source code was not released. The idea is that the users of a service are being harmed by not having access to the source code. If none of the users asked for the source code over three years, it's hard to establish a case for damages. If the original author of the AGPLed software is not actually a user of the site, he or he has also not suffered any damages.
  • tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    Releasing the source code used for the web site when it was still online.
    • kazinator 6y ago
      Even if that made sense, a court cannot reasonably order such a thing. The site source code can only be released if it can be made GPL-compatible, which may not be possible. For instance, it may be relying on some proprietary third-party piece. In fact, quite the opposite, the code could be such that if it were being distributed in source form, that activity would have to be ordered to cease.
    • bdowling 6y ago
      > Releasing the source code used for the web site when it was still online. A court will not order specific performance of license terms as a remedy for copyright infringement. It's just not an option. The remedy will be monetary damages only.