3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        marcan_42 5y ago
        I'm not relying on the contractual barrier, I'm relying on the interpretation of the clause as applying strictly to the behavior of the program as designed and embodied in the source code, and arguing that there is no moral requirement stated in the license for ensuring that that behavior is ultimately exposed to end users, and in fact, such a requirement would go against the spirit of the AGPL as a copyright license and it was explicitly written not to require that. Some people might disagree with that interpretation, which is okay because it's the kind of fine point nobody will ever agree on until it ends up in front of a judge. Which is why I bring up the two party example, to sidestep that question.

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.
      - marcan_42 5y ago
        I'm not relying on the contractual barrier, I'm relying on the interpretation of the clause as applying strictly to the behavior of the program as designed and embodied in the source code, and arguing that there is no moral requirement stated in the license for ensuring that that behavior is ultimately exposed to end users, and in fact, such a requirement would go against the spirit of the AGPL as a copyright license and it was explicitly written not to require that. Some people might disagree with that interpretation, which is okay because it's the kind of fine point nobody will ever agree on until it ends up in front of a judge. Which is why I bring up the two party example, to sidestep that question.