3 ms·

As far as I understand, the AGPL still allows a service provider to use an unmodified binary internally, as long as the user of that service never accesses it d

As far as I understand, the AGPL still allows a service provider to use an unmodified binary internally, as long as the user of that service never accesses it directly. If my understanding is correct, that means if GNU were to switch to AGPL, it wouldn't help the users of SaaS webapps that internally use GNU tools at all.

pessimizer 6y ago
If the webapps themselves use AGPL software, that's not "internally." If the employees of a SaaS company themselves use AGPL software that isn't linked to the service that users access, that's internally; e.g. if a webapp uses an AGPL database, the users are accessing that database.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  I'd say using an AGPL tool as a service for your webapp is this scenario: "Scenario 1: Using an unmodified AGPL binary" https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275 https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu... which seems to be allowed by AGPL without disclosing source code.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The details are somewhat unclear but basically yes, that's what a cloud provider/SaaS company would probably assume. So they probably just won't use AGPL code and if they do want to offer a service with the same APIs, they can (at least for now) recreate a compatible service that they write themselves.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
The point of the AGPL is to require sharing of modifications to the software when that software is used in a service. If you're using an unmodified binary, then you haven't made any changes to the software. You won't be obligated to share changes if the changes don't exist, so you could use the unmodified binary internally or externally. The AGPLv3 has a lot to say about patents, which is enough to scare off many companies from software that uses the AGPLv3, but I believe it won't be triggered if you never make any changes in the first place (and are therefore presumably not a 'contributor'). AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License , https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/107883/agpl-what-you-can-do-and-what-you-cant#comment202259_107931 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078...

pessimizer 6y ago

If the webapps themselves use AGPL software, that's not "internally." If the employees of a SaaS company themselves use AGPL software that isn't linked to the service that users access, that's internally; e.g. if a webapp uses an AGPL database, the users are accessing that database.

fxtentacle 6y ago
I'd say using an AGPL tool as a service for your webapp is this scenario: "Scenario 1: Using an unmodified AGPL binary" https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275 https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu... which seems to be allowed by AGPL without disclosing source code.
ghaff 6y ago
The details are somewhat unclear but basically yes, that's what a cloud provider/SaaS company would probably assume. So they probably just won't use AGPL code and if they do want to offer a service with the same APIs, they can (at least for now) recreate a compatible service that they write themselves.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

The point of the AGPL is to require sharing of modifications to the software when that software is used in a service. If you're using an unmodified binary, then you haven't made any changes to the software. You won't be obligated to share changes if the changes don't exist, so you could use the unmodified binary internally or externally. The AGPLv3 has a lot to say about patents, which is enough to scare off many companies from software that uses the AGPLv3, but I believe it won't be triggered if you never make any changes in the first place (and are therefore presumably not a 'contributor'). AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License , https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/107883/agpl-what-you-can-do-and-what-you-cant#comment202259_107931 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078...