4 ms·

> It is a violation of copyright law to make a modified work without permission Hence why I keep speaking of the time when you make changes to the code. > and

> It is a violation of copyright law to make a modified work without permission Hence why I keep speaking of the time when you make changes to the code. > and the permission here is a contract: the license. Which in this case is a pure copyright license, and therefore has no impact on how you use the software, by design, because its requirements only apply to modification and distribution. Look up how the AGPL was created. This was a concern and precisely why they did the bizarre modification-time wording that I keep pointing out. > What you are suggesting would then violate that contract by using that modified version in a way contrary to the license granted for its modification. We have a word for licenses that impose usage restrictions. They're called EULAs. They violate Freedom Zero and are not free software licenses. The AGPL is not an EULA, though it tries its hardest to look like one with that clause. I honestly don't even care that much about people choosing to interpret the AGPL in this way; I actually used to think like you, until I re-read it enough times to really understand what's going on. You're arguing that the AGPLv3 is a nonfree EULA that actually works as anti-SaaS. I'm arguing that it's a nonfree non-EULA that doesn't work. In both cases, it definitely isn't a free software license that actually works as anti-SaaS.

legalcorrection 5y ago
Based on your post, your whole theory turns on section 9: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. HOWEVER, NOTHING OTHER THAN THIS LICENSE GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO PROPAGATE OR MODIFY ANY COVERED WORK. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. You're so focused on the first sentence that you missed the one I've put in caps. Once you link to the program, you've created a modified work, which as it says plainly right there in section 9, you cannot do without accepting the license, which is a contract that tells you what you can and can't do with that modified work. I also suspect you're not really understanding that you don't have to touch the source code to the hypothetical AGPL'd JSON library to create a modified version of it. The whole theory of the (A)GPL is that you create a modified work by MERELY LINKING AND USING the library in your own code. The resulting program, including your own code that consumes the JSON library, is then a modified version of the library. This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember, the starting position legally is that you have NO RIGHT to use, modify, distribute, etc. a copyrighted work. You need a license from the owner. A license is a legal contract that can specify whatever terms and whatever conceptual framework it wants. You might think that linking to a library is merely "using" it, but the (A)GPL disagrees and that's the contract that tells you what you're allowed to do with it, take it or leave it.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  > You're so focused on the first sentence that you missed the one I've put in caps. Once you link to the program, you've created a modified work, which as it says plainly right there in section 9, you cannot do without accepting the license, which is a contract that tells you what you can and can't do with that modified work. First, you're still refusing to read Clause 13 properly, because it clearly sets requirements for what your modified work needs to do, not what you need to do when using it. Second, this still fails the two-party test, because obviously you could convey the modified version to another party and then they would not be bound by anything, and could evade any source code offer requirements in place. I feel like we're going in circles here; I already made all of these points in my original analysis. I also don't know why you're bringing up linking. Linking doesn't factor at all in any of the scenarios I'm talking about. I know how the (A)GPL works in that respect and am extremely familiar with this concept; you don't need to SHOUT IN ALL CAPS about this completely irrelevant point. The licenses are very clear in what constitutes linking, and merely running executable binaries and communicating with them does not, which is the situation we'd have with an offer-stripping reverse proxy. This is extremely well established in the free software ecosystem. You don't need to lecture me on how the GPL works; I am very familiar with it, agree with the consensus interpretations of GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and LGPL), and know all about the linking stuff. It is the AGPL I have a problem with, which does not change any of the requirements related to linking.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    That's an interesting point about Clause 13 talking about what the work must do, not the operator. I understand your point about the MIDI software better now. If indeed the protocol has no way of including a link to the source in any field or header or handshake or something, there is indeed a problem. Fwiw, I imagine that a small minority of network protocols have no way whatsoever of including that kind of metadata. And double so for software that a "user" can "interact with." But generally, the two party problem is solved by them needing to modify the source to remove the link to the source. As for the reverse proxy, I think the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract would work to prohibit that, but it is a fun hypothetical.

legalcorrection 5y ago

Based on your post, your whole theory turns on section 9: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. HOWEVER, NOTHING OTHER THAN THIS LICENSE GRANTS YOU PERMISSION TO PROPAGATE OR MODIFY ANY COVERED WORK. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. You're so focused on the first sentence that you missed the one I've put in caps. Once you link to the program, you've created a modified work, which as it says plainly right there in section 9, you cannot do without accepting the license, which is a contract that tells you what you can and can't do with that modified work. I also suspect you're not really understanding that you don't have to touch the source code to the hypothetical AGPL'd JSON library to create a modified version of it. The whole theory of the (A)GPL is that you create a modified work by MERELY LINKING AND USING the library in your own code. The resulting program, including your own code that consumes the JSON library, is then a modified version of the library. This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember, the starting position legally is that you have NO RIGHT to use, modify, distribute, etc. a copyrighted work. You need a license from the owner. A license is a legal contract that can specify whatever terms and whatever conceptual framework it wants. You might think that linking to a library is merely "using" it, but the (A)GPL disagrees and that's the contract that tells you what you're allowed to do with it, take it or leave it.

marcan_42 5y ago
> You're so focused on the first sentence that you missed the one I've put in caps. Once you link to the program, you've created a modified work, which as it says plainly right there in section 9, you cannot do without accepting the license, which is a contract that tells you what you can and can't do with that modified work. First, you're still refusing to read Clause 13 properly, because it clearly sets requirements for what your modified work needs to do, not what you need to do when using it. Second, this still fails the two-party test, because obviously you could convey the modified version to another party and then they would not be bound by anything, and could evade any source code offer requirements in place. I feel like we're going in circles here; I already made all of these points in my original analysis. I also don't know why you're bringing up linking. Linking doesn't factor at all in any of the scenarios I'm talking about. I know how the (A)GPL works in that respect and am extremely familiar with this concept; you don't need to SHOUT IN ALL CAPS about this completely irrelevant point. The licenses are very clear in what constitutes linking, and merely running executable binaries and communicating with them does not, which is the situation we'd have with an offer-stripping reverse proxy. This is extremely well established in the free software ecosystem. You don't need to lecture me on how the GPL works; I am very familiar with it, agree with the consensus interpretations of GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and LGPL), and know all about the linking stuff. It is the AGPL I have a problem with, which does not change any of the requirements related to linking.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  That's an interesting point about Clause 13 talking about what the work must do, not the operator. I understand your point about the MIDI software better now. If indeed the protocol has no way of including a link to the source in any field or header or handshake or something, there is indeed a problem. Fwiw, I imagine that a small minority of network protocols have no way whatsoever of including that kind of metadata. And double so for software that a "user" can "interact with." But generally, the two party problem is solved by them needing to modify the source to remove the link to the source. As for the reverse proxy, I think the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract would work to prohibit that, but it is a fun hypothetical.