5 ms·

The author is attempting to extract a loophole by having the "modifier" and "host" be two different entities. The license is clear: > Notwithstanding any other

by howeyc 5y ago

The author is attempting to extract a loophole by having the "modifier" and "host" be two different entities. The license is clear: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version So if someone modifies the program to remove access to source and provides the program to someone else, they have violated the license. Who hosts it doesn't matter, it's the person modifying the program that must make sure the modified version has some way of offering source.

kemitchell 5y ago
My hypo assumes a license violation. Then what? The violator and the user of the modified aren't necessarily the same, or even related.
tzs 5y ago
I don't think you are fully considering the part of the license you quote. The loophole is more subtle than you think. It depends on the fact that there are two conditions that have to be met: you modify the program and you have users interacting with it remotely through a computer network. I download some AGPL code, modify it, including removing the part where it offers to make source available, and run it in some application where there are no users who interact with it remotely through a computer network. I don't trigger the AGPL source clause, because I don't have interactive remote users. This means that for me the license is essentially plain GPLv3, not AGPL. I choose to publish my modified source in some public place. Alice downloads that source, runs it on her own server, and she do have users who interact with it remotely through a computer network. But she has not modified the program, so she doesn't trigger the AGPL source clause either. If I later choose to take down my modified source (which I can do because I was not obligated in the first place to publish is), and no one else happens to have made a copy avaiable, then we end up with Alice running a modified AGPL program with users interacting remotely over a network, and with no one obligated to provide source.
- howeyc 5y ago
  If your program has the ability to interact with remote users it must give those users access to the source in some way. If you use it in a way where you don't have users, fine. But if someone else uses your source unmodified and your program can interact with remote users it better have a way to provide those users the source. You can't just hand-wave "I have no remote users" so my source turns into GPL and therefore I've removed source access for network users. Come download my source and run it on a network. Your misunderstanding is believing you don't trigger the source clause. You do, it's just that you don't have users so you ignore the clause assuming your program will never have remote users ever. Mistake by you. Why give Alice the source to something not complying to the license? That's on you.

by howeyc 5y ago

kemitchell 5y ago

My hypo assumes a license violation. Then what? The violator and the user of the modified aren't necessarily the same, or even related.

tzs 5y ago

I don't think you are fully considering the part of the license you quote. The loophole is more subtle than you think. It depends on the fact that there are two conditions that have to be met: you modify the program and you have users interacting with it remotely through a computer network. I download some AGPL code, modify it, including removing the part where it offers to make source available, and run it in some application where there are no users who interact with it remotely through a computer network. I don't trigger the AGPL source clause, because I don't have interactive remote users. This means that for me the license is essentially plain GPLv3, not AGPL. I choose to publish my modified source in some public place. Alice downloads that source, runs it on her own server, and she do have users who interact with it remotely through a computer network. But she has not modified the program, so she doesn't trigger the AGPL source clause either. If I later choose to take down my modified source (which I can do because I was not obligated in the first place to publish is), and no one else happens to have made a copy avaiable, then we end up with Alice running a modified AGPL program with users interacting remotely over a network, and with no one obligated to provide source.

howeyc 5y ago
If your program has the ability to interact with remote users it must give those users access to the source in some way. If you use it in a way where you don't have users, fine. But if someone else uses your source unmodified and your program can interact with remote users it better have a way to provide those users the source. You can't just hand-wave "I have no remote users" so my source turns into GPL and therefore I've removed source access for network users. Come download my source and run it on a network. Your misunderstanding is believing you don't trigger the source clause. You do, it's just that you don't have users so you ignore the clause assuming your program will never have remote users ever. Mistake by you. Why give Alice the source to something not complying to the license? That's on you.