3 ms·

I like the AGPL, but I would like an extra step that forces you to distribute code even you have not modified it. This would be in the case of the original bein

I like the AGPL, but I would like an extra step that forces you to distribute code even you have not modified it. This would be in the case of the original being unavailable for some reason. Does anyone know how difficult it would be to have the login page for a web app be a different license? The idea being that the only users of the AGPL code are ones that have a valid account. Off the top of my head a reverse proxy, with a completely separate auth app would do the trick, but would be a bit of a pain.

jblwps 6y ago
> I like the AGPL, but I would like an extra step that forces you to distribute code even you have not modified it. This is...already the case. The distributor is the one who is bound to supply the source code--"upstream" isn't implicated in the license.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  I didn't see your reply until just now, but the AGPL does not require you to redistribute source code to network users if it is not modified. The following stack exchange question has quotes from the fsf https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/650/do-i-have-to-offer-the-source-of-an-agpl-v3-0-licensed-web-app-even-if-i-didn https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/650/do-i-have...