3 ms·

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

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.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Party 2 in this case appears to be in violation, serving a service without the offer. Then there was no particular intent there, and I'm sure when you realised, you remedied it? Honestly we've wandered so far from "malicious actors can sidestep the license here that I'm not sure what your point is.
        marcan_42 5y ago
        > Party 2 in this case appears to be in violation, serving a service without the offer. If Party 2 has not made any changes to the source code, they have no obligation to make any offer under the license, since the requirement only applies to parties who modify the program. Party 1's obligations are not transferred to Party 2 when the program is. The license applies as written, there is no "carry-over" of state.
        Nursie 5y ago
        The license applies as written and as interpreted in a court of law. When you were both parties, you were in violation. And as you say party 2 hosts the software that party 1 has altered, you appear to be relying on a contractual barrier between party 1 and 2 that makes them separate entities to 'shield' the party actually presenting the service from having any obligations. It's entirely possible that a judge could interpret the 'you' in clause 13 to include any parties who are providing the modified version to their networked users. Either way it's probably not really some sort of 'gotcha' that just allows you to circumvent with impunity.

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.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      Party 2 in this case appears to be in violation, serving a service without the offer. Then there was no particular intent there, and I'm sure when you realised, you remedied it? Honestly we've wandered so far from "malicious actors can sidestep the license here that I'm not sure what your point is.
      - marcan_42 5y ago
        > Party 2 in this case appears to be in violation, serving a service without the offer. If Party 2 has not made any changes to the source code, they have no obligation to make any offer under the license, since the requirement only applies to parties who modify the program. Party 1's obligations are not transferred to Party 2 when the program is. The license applies as written, there is no "carry-over" of state.
        Nursie 5y ago
        The license applies as written and as interpreted in a court of law. When you were both parties, you were in violation. And as you say party 2 hosts the software that party 1 has altered, you appear to be relying on a contractual barrier between party 1 and 2 that makes them separate entities to 'shield' the party actually presenting the service from having any obligations. It's entirely possible that a judge could interpret the 'you' in clause 13 to include any parties who are providing the modified version to their networked users. Either way it's probably not really some sort of 'gotcha' that just allows you to circumvent with impunity.