3 ms·
You are equivocating. You are making subtle changes to the qualifiers of the condition at issue (again[1]). Doubly odd for someone exhorting others to "read[.
by cxr 5y ago
You are equivocating. You are making subtle changes to the qualifiers of the condition at issue (again[1]). Doubly odd for someone exhorting others to "read[...] very carefully".
Whether someone has "made any changes to the source code" is not the applicable rubric.
In this case you are constructing a stronger condition than the actual condition—which is much lower: to modify the Program. Your clever reverse proxy doesn't subvert this. (It's not so clever.) You're modifying the program whether you've touched any files containing plain text source code or not. (Even then, you probably have; cf IaC.)
Aside from that, others' points about courts not being simple machines that exist to be hacked is very relevant to this discussion and many others that devolve into this sort of thing when hackers get involved[2].
Overall, this is astoundingly bad synthesis for something that has gotten so much traction.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30179334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30179334
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25687897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25687897
- marcan_42 5y agoAre you arguing that creating a program that interacts with another program is "modifying it"? Because then essentially all software is a derivative work of everything else and the entire industry is one giant copyright violation. Come on. You're grasping at straws here. That makes zero sense. It goes against everything we know about how software licensing works. It is extremely well established that interacting with software through stable, external interfaces does not constitute creating a derivative work of the software.
- cxr 5y agoI am arguing, specifically, that your reverse proxy respects neither the spirit nor the letter of the AGPL and does not provide the kind of protections that you're claiming it would. (Separately, if ever the words "come on" make their way into your response, or you have to try to invent an argument for another person so that you can simultaneously take it down, then your own argument is probably junk. Here you've done both.)
- marcan_42 5y agoYou argued, specifically, that, > You're modifying the program whether you've touched any files containing plain text source code or not. And that is just not how copyright works. (Separately, if you ever find yourself linking to completely unrelated comments by the person you are replying to in order to construct an attack on them personally, then your own argument is probably nonsense, and you're probably not a fun person to have around.)
- cxr 5y agoDo less Twitter.