4 ms·
> I am not providing software via the network. I'm providing JSON (or protobuf or whatever), in response to questions. That's one way to look at it, but I thin
by jack_h 5y ago
> I am not providing software via the network. I'm providing JSON (or protobuf or whatever), in response to questions.
That's one way to look at it, but I think it's a distinction without a difference.
Take as an example a GPL library wrapped with a thin IPC interface (that is open sourced) which is used by a separate proprietary program running in its own process. Is this okay? What if they're running on two separate and independent microcontroller cores connected over the same memory bus? What about over a serial link? Add a few more OSI layers and you get to the AGPL.
In the end it's a matter of degree and its up to the author to decide where they want that line drawn for their project.
- aflag 5y agoI think the point is that, if you don't send the GPL + IPC layer to user, then it is not counted as distribution. Certainly there is a distinction between distributing the full software and allowing network access to it, otherwise there would be no need for AGPL, as GPL would cover that too. The question is whether that requirement is actually something that's protected by law. I lean more towards it being protected. Otherwise, running a pirated version of some software and exposing it on the web wouldn't be considered ilegal either, and I'm pretty sure it is.