5 ms·
> Step 5: Stick a reverse proxy in front that deletes the source code offer (No license implication, does not modify the AGPL software in any way, see Clause 9)
by NavinF 5y ago
> Step 5: Stick a reverse proxy in front that deletes the source code offer (No license implication, does not modify the AGPL software in any way, see Clause 9)
> Heck, this situation could easily happen semi-organically - a reverse proxy doesn't have to be designed to explicitly remove the source code offer, it could merely be a protocol translator/wrapper that has no support for that specific message/tag, which is something that happens all the time.
Hmm I would be unsurprised a judge interprets the writing/configuring of a reverse proxy that modifies the HTML output or blocks access to some pages to be the same thing as editing the AGPL code yourself.
Though if I’m right, this implies that anything (load balancer, templating engine, protocol conversion, auth, etc) that calls an AGPL app also has to be open sourced even if the AGPL app is unmodified and doesn’t call any of your code. I can see why pretty much every company bans the use (freedom 0) of AGPL even on dev laptops: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
- eru 5y agoSlightly off-topic: I'm surprised by how many internal technical details Google is intentionally leaking with their documentation here. Stuff about //third_party and //experimental etc.
- NavinF 5y agoOh all that is public knowledge. You’ll find references to the repo layout in just about every open sourced project that comes with Bazel BUILD files.
- cdibona 5y agoIt's extremely intentional! I wouldn't even call it a leak...
- eru 5y agoThanks. I meant 'leak' in the sense of 'oil leak'. Not in the sense of 'unintentional disclosure'.
- marcan_42 5y ago> Hmm I would be unsurprised a judge interprets the writing/configuring of a reverse proxy that modifies the HTML output or blocks access to some pages to be the same thing as editing the AGPL code yourself. That would mean anyone using an ad blocker (or any other userscript) on AGPLed websites is in violation of the license too. This is actually a very complex legal issue, because HTML can be copyrighted, and so making changes to it can be subject to the license. It's why I mentioned that web apps can conceivably benefit from the AGPL in a somewhat reasonable way if they self-serve their own source code, to sidestep the AGPL's anti-developer aspect. But for something like MongoDB, where the protocol does not convey copyrightable portions of the software? Doesn't work. The AGPL is out of the picture by the time the bytes flow out of the server.
- Nursie 5y agoIt really wouldn't mean that, this is fallacious thinking, the law is not code and intent is important.
- marcan_42 5y agoIndeed, which is why ad blockers are legal. And thus, it follows that my interpretation of the two-party scenario is also correct, because similarly to the user running an ad blocker, the person running a reverse proxy has nothing to do with the licensing requirements imposed on a different person who modified the code.
- Nursie 5y agoNo, I'm afraid it does not follow at all. Your two-party scenario displays intent to interfere with contractual rights. It may be a difficult situation to deal with legally, but it's very different from a user running their own ad-blocker. As others have said, your thinking here is very much "apply the contract as if it were code, and then think of exploits/bugs". I don't believe this maps to the real world legal system very well.
- 5y ago