3 ms·

Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.

by Gaelan 5y ago

mhitza 5y ago
That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?
Qwertious 5y ago
How is the AGPL a EULA? It's basically just the GPL with the definition of "distribution" tweaked to include interfacing with the specific program over a network.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  Interfacing to a program over a network is not an act of copying, thus not controlled by copyright. Therefore, attempting to control such usage falls out of the category of copyright licenses (which the GPL is) and into the realm of EULAs (think "you may use this software with at most two network users" - same story). I used to think the AGPL was an EULA based on an interpretation biased by how people think the AGPL works. Upon looking into this more closely, I've realized this is most likely not the correct interpretation. Instead, my current opinion is that the AGPL is just a terrible copyright license that is almost impossible to comply with (most AGPLed projects without copyright assignment violate their own license - if you think this doesn't make sense, what I mean is every contributor violates every other contributor's copyright), while not actually protecting against proprietary SaaSification in any legally enforceable way. I could go into more details, but honestly I've told this story one time too many, so I'll just encourage people to read clause 13, word for word, carefully, and think about what it actually means, not what the FSF has convinced everyone it means.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    You would waste less time and communicate more information by writing up your opinion in full once and linking to it.

Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.

by Gaelan 5y ago

Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.

That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?

Qwertious 5y ago

How is the AGPL a EULA? It's basically just the GPL with the definition of "distribution" tweaked to include interfacing with the specific program over a network.

marcan_42 5y ago
Interfacing to a program over a network is not an act of copying, thus not controlled by copyright. Therefore, attempting to control such usage falls out of the category of copyright licenses (which the GPL is) and into the realm of EULAs (think "you may use this software with at most two network users" - same story). I used to think the AGPL was an EULA based on an interpretation biased by how people think the AGPL works. Upon looking into this more closely, I've realized this is most likely not the correct interpretation. Instead, my current opinion is that the AGPL is just a terrible copyright license that is almost impossible to comply with (most AGPLed projects without copyright assignment violate their own license - if you think this doesn't make sense, what I mean is every contributor violates every other contributor's copyright), while not actually protecting against proprietary SaaSification in any legally enforceable way. I could go into more details, but honestly I've told this story one time too many, so I'll just encourage people to read clause 13, word for word, carefully, and think about what it actually means, not what the FSF has convinced everyone it means.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  You would waste less time and communicate more information by writing up your opinion in full once and linking to it.