5 ms·

> But generally, the two party problem is solved by them needing to modify the source to remove the link to the source. The idea is the second party does not m

> But generally, the two party problem is solved by them needing to modify the source to remove the link to the source. The idea is the second party does not modify the source, they merely prevent the link from reaching the end user. Since the second party isn't bound by that clause at all, there's no way this could constitute a violation per se.

jka 5y ago
If I understand this part of the conversation correctly: the theory/loophole is that a second-party could proxy the AGPLv3-licensed content before it reaches the user, and remove links to the source code?
- marcan_42 5y ago
  They could proxy access to an AGPLv3-licensed application, where such access does not convey copyrightable content. For example, consider a database server that puts up a banner with a link to the source when you open the connection. You could remove said banner with a proxy. It actually doesn't have to be a second party in my opinion, I believe it'd be perfectly legitimate if it's the same party. I'm just using that as a more clear-cut example because otherwise things devolve into endless arguments about whether a judge would see it as good faith or not.
  - jka 5y ago
    Doesn't the process of removing the banner imply that the original software has been modified? (under that line of thinking, the network is the computer (computation is taking place in a distributed manner))
    - marcan_42 5y ago
      It does not. The copyrighted work is the code for the software, and making modifications means modifying the copyrighted software. Copyright has no notion of "modification" in the sense of changing the final behavior. It's strictly about making changes to the copyrighted work itself. This is why things can get interesting with binary hooks and patches, which, depending on how they're done, can be argued not to be modifying the copyrighted work (e.g. a hook done via a hardware debug breakpoint does not require making any alterations to the target software per se, in the copyright sense). Similarly, interpreting (e.g. emulating) software is widely understood to be legal since you aren't modifying the underlying software, even if the emulator causes it to behave differently from the original intent. Of course, then things get murky again with emulation techniques such as JIT, which could be argued to be creating a transient derivative work. Or not so transient, in the case of AOT. I would dare say there is a legal argument to be made that running older x86 Mac apps on an M1 Mac could constitute unauthorized creation of a derivative work (since it outright caches AOT recompiled versions of the apps you run using Rosetta). Of course, this seems stupid from a technical point of view, but I'd love to see if there is prior case law on this kind of situation, where a newly introduced technological mechanism can conceivably cause re-classification of the copyright effects of merely running software. It's certainly a deep rabbit hole to go into.

jka 5y ago

If I understand this part of the conversation correctly: the theory/loophole is that a second-party could proxy the AGPLv3-licensed content before it reaches the user, and remove links to the source code?

marcan_42 5y ago
They could proxy access to an AGPLv3-licensed application, where such access does not convey copyrightable content. For example, consider a database server that puts up a banner with a link to the source when you open the connection. You could remove said banner with a proxy. It actually doesn't have to be a second party in my opinion, I believe it'd be perfectly legitimate if it's the same party. I'm just using that as a more clear-cut example because otherwise things devolve into endless arguments about whether a judge would see it as good faith or not.
- jka 5y ago
  Doesn't the process of removing the banner imply that the original software has been modified? (under that line of thinking, the network is the computer (computation is taking place in a distributed manner))
  - marcan_42 5y ago
    It does not. The copyrighted work is the code for the software, and making modifications means modifying the copyrighted software. Copyright has no notion of "modification" in the sense of changing the final behavior. It's strictly about making changes to the copyrighted work itself. This is why things can get interesting with binary hooks and patches, which, depending on how they're done, can be argued not to be modifying the copyrighted work (e.g. a hook done via a hardware debug breakpoint does not require making any alterations to the target software per se, in the copyright sense). Similarly, interpreting (e.g. emulating) software is widely understood to be legal since you aren't modifying the underlying software, even if the emulator causes it to behave differently from the original intent. Of course, then things get murky again with emulation techniques such as JIT, which could be argued to be creating a transient derivative work. Or not so transient, in the case of AOT. I would dare say there is a legal argument to be made that running older x86 Mac apps on an M1 Mac could constitute unauthorized creation of a derivative work (since it outright caches AOT recompiled versions of the apps you run using Rosetta). Of course, this seems stupid from a technical point of view, but I'd love to see if there is prior case law on this kind of situation, where a newly introduced technological mechanism can conceivably cause re-classification of the copyright effects of merely running software. It's certainly a deep rabbit hole to go into.