3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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 ago
It really wouldn't mean that, this is fallacious thinking, the law is not code and intent is important.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  Indeed, 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 ago
    No, 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.
    - marcan_42 5y ago
      > Your two-party scenario displays intent to interfere with contractual rights. Only if those two parties actually colluded with that intent, and you can prove it. Personally, I don't want to be on the hook for proving this kind of nonsense in order to enforce my license. If I cared about SaaSification, I'd much rather use an outright EULA that forbids it and cut out all this nonsense of pretending you can solve the issue with a free software pure copyright license.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > Only if those two parties actually colluded with that intent, and you can prove it. Let's think about it though - Party 1 hosts the software, and does so on an open endpoint that is very hidden, most/all users access it through party 2's proxy - there's intent, right there. In civil cases in particular, the standard of proof is on preponderance of evidence and what's most likely, not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Again, you're falling very much for "software guy interprets law as code" through all of this.
        marcan_42 5y ago
        Party 1 develops the software, and hosts it on an open endpoint that is not publicly advertised. Party 1 has met their obligations. Party 2 hosts the software, and does so behind a wrapper that does not forward the source code offer (this doesn't mean a wrapper that does s/source code offer//; it could be a protocol converter, WAF, or any other number of things that could lose non-protocol-relevant data like a source code offer). None of this demonstrates intent. In fact, I have ended up in the Party 2 scenario accidentally already (in my case I was both parties, but that was a a coincidence), as I ran an (accidentally) modified AGPL service behind another public server that used it as a backend. There was no source code offer at all to begin with, but even if there had been, the nature of the system involved would mean it would be pretty much impossible for that offer to percolate past the frontend and back to the external users, just the way the protocols involved worked, no explicit malice involved.
        5y ago

Nursie 5y ago

It really wouldn't mean that, this is fallacious thinking, the law is not code and intent is important.

marcan_42 5y ago
Indeed, 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 ago
  No, 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.
  - marcan_42 5y ago
    > Your two-party scenario displays intent to interfere with contractual rights. Only if those two parties actually colluded with that intent, and you can prove it. Personally, I don't want to be on the hook for proving this kind of nonsense in order to enforce my license. If I cared about SaaSification, I'd much rather use an outright EULA that forbids it and cut out all this nonsense of pretending you can solve the issue with a free software pure copyright license.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Only if those two parties actually colluded with that intent, and you can prove it. Let's think about it though - Party 1 hosts the software, and does so on an open endpoint that is very hidden, most/all users access it through party 2's proxy - there's intent, right there. In civil cases in particular, the standard of proof is on preponderance of evidence and what's most likely, not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Again, you're falling very much for "software guy interprets law as code" through all of this.
      - marcan_42 5y ago
        Party 1 develops the software, and hosts it on an open endpoint that is not publicly advertised. Party 1 has met their obligations. Party 2 hosts the software, and does so behind a wrapper that does not forward the source code offer (this doesn't mean a wrapper that does s/source code offer//; it could be a protocol converter, WAF, or any other number of things that could lose non-protocol-relevant data like a source code offer). None of this demonstrates intent. In fact, I have ended up in the Party 2 scenario accidentally already (in my case I was both parties, but that was a a coincidence), as I ran an (accidentally) modified AGPL service behind another public server that used it as a backend. There was no source code offer at all to begin with, but even if there had been, the nature of the system involved would mean it would be pretty much impossible for that offer to percolate past the frontend and back to the external users, just the way the protocols involved worked, no explicit malice involved.
        5y ago