3 ms·

Could you point to the violation please? I don’t see how users would be entitled to their modified software if they do not distribute it. Using the software i

Could you point to the violation please? I don’t see how users would be entitled to their modified software if they do not distribute it. Using the software is not distribution. Or is it?

rsynnott 5y ago
That would be the case if it was under boring ol' normal GPLv3. However, it is not; it's under the AGPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License If they've changed it at all, they'll need to release that.
- randombits0 5y ago
  So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable. Maybe. Where’s the line? The product provides my content, in the form of html/css/JavaScript/whatever. That’s technically software/copyrightable but isn’t a component of the AGPLed product. Otherwise, I agree that the AGPL would require distribution of software mods to the product. I can’t imagine why they would modify or how the author would detect such modifications. Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics. There should at least be a smoking gun, no? Otherwise, post a link to the product and you’re done.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    > So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable. No, not at all; you'd simply have to release the changes you make. For the purposes of this article, your 'users' are anyone who interacts with the software. > Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics. Mentioned in the article; they've been removing references to Mastodon from Mastodon. Which you are allowed to do, but at that point you have to release any changes you've made.
    - randombits0 5y ago
      But from where? Headers? Embedded graphic? Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended. Actually, it might. Per section 1: > The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. Mastodon is written in Ruby, and large Ruby programs (particularly Rails) usually use Ruby DSLs for configuration. It's very plausible that changes to the config would trigger the AGPL.
        stevenicr 5y ago
        So technically this could mean that every person that has launched a mastadon instance needs to make a copy and release to the world our config files, passwords, DB users and other changes for the world to see? Or we are all in violation of making changes and not re-releasing them? Does it spell out how we need to release them, like upon request via email or have a link to a package via main page or something?
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Your passwords and databases are probably not considered code, whereas a DSL that happens to be used for configuration would be. But let's be clear: copyright holders get to decide when they enforce their copyrights. They aren't beholden to enforcement the way that trademark holders are. It's perfectly reasonable and legally consistent for a copyright holder to prioritize egregious violations (like TRUTH's) while ignoring smaller ones (like Joe Schmoe forgetting to publish his tuning changes).
woodruffw 5y ago
AGPL, which Mastodon is licensed under, was created to address exactly the loophole you've identified. Under the AGPL, modified forms of the software that are used to provide user services must be distributed under the same terms.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Could you point to the violation please? I don’t see how users would be entitled to their modified software if they do not distribute it. Using the software is not distribution. Or is it?

rsynnott 5y ago

That would be the case if it was under boring ol' normal GPLv3. However, it is not; it's under the AGPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License If they've changed it at all, they'll need to release that.

randombits0 5y ago
So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable. Maybe. Where’s the line? The product provides my content, in the form of html/css/JavaScript/whatever. That’s technically software/copyrightable but isn’t a component of the AGPLed product. Otherwise, I agree that the AGPL would require distribution of software mods to the product. I can’t imagine why they would modify or how the author would detect such modifications. Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics. There should at least be a smoking gun, no? Otherwise, post a link to the product and you’re done.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable. No, not at all; you'd simply have to release the changes you make. For the purposes of this article, your 'users' are anyone who interacts with the software. > Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics. Mentioned in the article; they've been removing references to Mastodon from Mastodon. Which you are allowed to do, but at that point you have to release any changes you've made.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    But from where? Headers? Embedded graphic? Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended. Actually, it might. Per section 1: > The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. Mastodon is written in Ruby, and large Ruby programs (particularly Rails) usually use Ruby DSLs for configuration. It's very plausible that changes to the config would trigger the AGPL.
      - stevenicr 5y ago
        So technically this could mean that every person that has launched a mastadon instance needs to make a copy and release to the world our config files, passwords, DB users and other changes for the world to see? Or we are all in violation of making changes and not re-releasing them? Does it spell out how we need to release them, like upon request via email or have a link to a package via main page or something?
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Your passwords and databases are probably not considered code, whereas a DSL that happens to be used for configuration would be. But let's be clear: copyright holders get to decide when they enforce their copyrights. They aren't beholden to enforcement the way that trademark holders are. It's perfectly reasonable and legally consistent for a copyright holder to prioritize egregious violations (like TRUTH's) while ignoring smaller ones (like Joe Schmoe forgetting to publish his tuning changes).

woodruffw 5y ago

AGPL, which Mastodon is licensed under, was created to address exactly the loophole you've identified. Under the AGPL, modified forms of the software that are used to provide user services must be distributed under the same terms.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]