3 ms·

> I really wish the FSF would stop pushing this nonsensical license I read your comment you linked to. To me, the FSF makes a lot more sense than your argument

> I really wish the FSF would stop pushing this nonsensical license I read your comment you linked to. To me, the FSF makes a lot more sense than your argument does, your workaround--have a server that makes the required offer and run it through a proxy that deletes the offer before anybody can red it--is not a workaround, it's a violation of the license you agreed to.

eru 5y ago
Ignore that work-around, and focus on the other workaround where you split the work between multiple parties.
marcan_42 5y ago
It would be a lot more helpful if you explained the reasoning behind your understanding, instead of just making an unsupported statement.
- primax 5y ago
  Isn't it obvious? If you put a reverse proxy in between you (serving the code) and the user of the software with the intent of disrupting any serving of the code, you are not in fact making the code available. Hence, you can't claim to be meeting your obligations under the license. IANAL but I suspect a judge would look on these kinds of arguments with the same enthusiasm as sovereign citizen nonsense.
  - marcan_42 5y ago
    > If you put a reverse proxy in between you (serving the code) and the user of the software with the intent of disrupting any serving of the code, you are not in fact making the code available. Hence, you can't claim to be meeting your obligations under the license. As I explained, your obligations under the license are as to what modifications you make to the code, not how you run the code. This is both explicit (if confusing) in the wording of the clause, and implied in the AGPL being a pure copyright license, and has been confirmed to be the intent by people involved in authoring the AGPL. You are misinterpreting the license because the FSF has endlessly marketed it as something other than what it is, and so everyone thinks it actually restricts usage (while simultaneously thinking it's a free software license, which is impossible if you know how free software is defined), and so everyone loves to make this "a judge would not let this kind of clever workaround fly" argument. Unfortunately for everyone, judges look at the text of the license, not the FSF's marketing, and the text of the license does not say what the FSF's marketing implies.

eru 5y ago

Ignore that work-around, and focus on the other workaround where you split the work between multiple parties.

marcan_42 5y ago

It would be a lot more helpful if you explained the reasoning behind your understanding, instead of just making an unsupported statement.

primax 5y ago
Isn't it obvious? If you put a reverse proxy in between you (serving the code) and the user of the software with the intent of disrupting any serving of the code, you are not in fact making the code available. Hence, you can't claim to be meeting your obligations under the license. IANAL but I suspect a judge would look on these kinds of arguments with the same enthusiasm as sovereign citizen nonsense.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  > If you put a reverse proxy in between you (serving the code) and the user of the software with the intent of disrupting any serving of the code, you are not in fact making the code available. Hence, you can't claim to be meeting your obligations under the license. As I explained, your obligations under the license are as to what modifications you make to the code, not how you run the code. This is both explicit (if confusing) in the wording of the clause, and implied in the AGPL being a pure copyright license, and has been confirmed to be the intent by people involved in authoring the AGPL. You are misinterpreting the license because the FSF has endlessly marketed it as something other than what it is, and so everyone thinks it actually restricts usage (while simultaneously thinking it's a free software license, which is impossible if you know how free software is defined), and so everyone loves to make this "a judge would not let this kind of clever workaround fly" argument. Unfortunately for everyone, judges look at the text of the license, not the FSF's marketing, and the text of the license does not say what the FSF's marketing implies.