4 ms·

Doesn't it also depend to some degree on how much code sits between the user and AGPL code? IIRC AGPL was created to bypass a thin wrapper frontend type situat

by hnick 6y ago

Doesn't it also depend to some degree on how much code sits between the user and AGPL code? IIRC AGPL was created to bypass a thin wrapper frontend type situation. I make a website that takes PDFs, it lets users extract pages. In the backend I'm just running a modified Ghostscript command line and sending back what it makes. From my discussions with other people, this type of direct coupling automation is what is intended to trigger the AGPL. Is this incorrect? If that doesn't trigger it, the 'users interacting with it remotely' clause is all but useless because firewalls and service chains like this are really easy to construct. Not all AGPL software is able to natively run as a server itself. And if it does trigger it, a simple ToDo CRUD app that relies on a database is pretty much the same thing in my eyes.

lmm 6y ago
It depends on whether a court considers it to legally be a derivative work or not. Some (but not all) circuits apply the "Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test", under which thin wrappers should make no difference. Other courts might have their own ways of deciding. The whole area is murky and untested, mainly because companies haven't really hammered out the cases in court.
- hnick 6y ago
  How is the court venue decided? Is it based on where the copyright holder is based? That just adds a whole other layer of murky, now I can decide whether or not to infringe based on where the project is headquartered :)
  - lmm 6y ago
    Apparently not, it's "either (1) in the district “where the defendant resides” or (2) in the district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”" That's US specific of course.
zmmmmm 6y ago
The key part of the AGPL is phrased: > 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 So note the "interacting with it remotely" language isn't specific to just a network connection. So a reasonable interpretation would absolutely be that your users are "interacting remotely" with the PDF tool in the scenario you describe, no matter how many thin layers you put in between. So this then goes to the question of how a court would decide the boundary ... clearly the connectivity of the internet means nearly every computer and software on earth is theoretically linked by a network. So that is where they would look at how direct the interaction with the AGPL software was, and how critically and specifically dependent on that interaction your software is. If everything a user does gets transformed into a completely different form by the time it hits the AGPL software then they aren't interacting with it remotely - they are interacting with your software remotely and your software is interacting with the AGPL. Similarly, if you could trivially substitute the AGPL for something equivalent and the end user wouldn't notice, that would also argue they aren't really interacting with the AGPL software specifically. Of course, nothing is really clear until it goes to court, but this my best understanding of current state.

by hnick 6y ago

lmm 6y ago

It depends on whether a court considers it to legally be a derivative work or not. Some (but not all) circuits apply the "Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test", under which thin wrappers should make no difference. Other courts might have their own ways of deciding. The whole area is murky and untested, mainly because companies haven't really hammered out the cases in court.

hnick 6y ago
How is the court venue decided? Is it based on where the copyright holder is based? That just adds a whole other layer of murky, now I can decide whether or not to infringe based on where the project is headquartered :)
- lmm 6y ago
  Apparently not, it's "either (1) in the district “where the defendant resides” or (2) in the district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”" That's US specific of course.

zmmmmm 6y ago

The key part of the AGPL is phrased: > 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 So note the "interacting with it remotely" language isn't specific to just a network connection. So a reasonable interpretation would absolutely be that your users are "interacting remotely" with the PDF tool in the scenario you describe, no matter how many thin layers you put in between. So this then goes to the question of how a court would decide the boundary ... clearly the connectivity of the internet means nearly every computer and software on earth is theoretically linked by a network. So that is where they would look at how direct the interaction with the AGPL software was, and how critically and specifically dependent on that interaction your software is. If everything a user does gets transformed into a completely different form by the time it hits the AGPL software then they aren't interacting with it remotely - they are interacting with your software remotely and your software is interacting with the AGPL. Similarly, if you could trivially substitute the AGPL for something equivalent and the end user wouldn't notice, that would also argue they aren't really interacting with the AGPL software specifically. Of course, nothing is really clear until it goes to court, but this my best understanding of current state.