3 ms·

> individual people often benefit from denying access to the source code of software that is used to provide a service To the detriment of the users of that se

• sneak 5y ago
  That's a very simplistic and, I think inaccurate view of the matter. My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way because I use private forks of GPL software in the provision of my services.
  • LambdaComplex 5y ago
    > My customers, for example, to whom I provide service, are not infringed upon in any way The issue is that I—and, more importantly, your customers—must simply take your word for it, since we're unable to confirm or deny it for ourselves if you don't make the source available. When dealing with large corporations, taking such statements at face value is pretty foolish.
    • throwaway2037 5y ago
      This is an interesting point. The original question was what if my database was AGPL, and it's source code was modified. If this database was used as part of a public (cloud-based) web-app, how could end users ever know there is a custom database? You are right: It seems likely that less ethical orgs would just lie and say they use the database unmodified. Thus avoiding the obligation to publish their database modifications as required by AGPL.
  • CRConrad 5y ago
    They will be when you go out of business and disappear, and they can't compile that same service to run on their own replacement server because you've withheld the source to your modification. You might not want to admit to yourself that your business model is based on infringing on the freedoms of these users of GPL software, but that's exactly what it is.