2 ms·

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 co

• 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.