3 ms·

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

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).
        randombits0 5y ago
        That not withstanding, copyright applies only to that which is copyrightable. One may not express rights they do not have. Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        > Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with. This is a more abstract observation than is perhaps relevant to the situation at hand, which involves a group of people modifying software components that the current body of software copyright law would not consider "purely functional."
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  You want a reskinned mastodon with winking Trump and MAGA plastered all over it that badly?

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).
      - randombits0 5y ago
        That not withstanding, copyright applies only to that which is copyrightable. One may not express rights they do not have. Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        > Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with. This is a more abstract observation than is perhaps relevant to the situation at hand, which involves a group of people modifying software components that the current body of software copyright law would not consider "purely functional."
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
You want a reskinned mastodon with winking Trump and MAGA plastered all over it that badly?