3 ms·

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 softwa

by 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
  But your two-party example is quite possibly fallacious, that's the point here, they may well be considered one party by a court, or equally responsible. Further, if the New York Times website can be considered a copyright work, and my proxy provides an altered version (say, one that credits me with writing all the articles), I've probably violated their copyright. I think your proxy could fall foul of this sort of thing too. You may have identified an area where a legal morass could be found if it comes up, but again I don't think it's "one simple trick that AGPL holders hate".

by Nursie 5y ago

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
But your two-party example is quite possibly fallacious, that's the point here, they may well be considered one party by a court, or equally responsible. Further, if the New York Times website can be considered a copyright work, and my proxy provides an altered version (say, one that credits me with writing all the articles), I've probably violated their copyright. I think your proxy could fall foul of this sort of thing too. You may have identified an area where a legal morass could be found if it comes up, but again I don't think it's "one simple trick that AGPL holders hate".