4 ms·

> I'm also bothered by how you use "GPL/AGPL" repeatedly. The GPL is a standard copyright license, the AGPL is a EULA, and there's good reasons to distinguish t

> I'm also bothered by how you use "GPL/AGPL" repeatedly. The GPL is a standard copyright license, the AGPL is a EULA, and there's good reasons to distinguish them. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. The very first line of the AGPL reads: "The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license". And from the FSF's own site: "The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement..." [0] [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

jmillikin 4y ago
The GPL is a copyright license. It applies when copyright law would otherwise prevent distributing some program. If I were to violate the GPL, for example by sending someone a compiled version and refusing to provide the source, then there's a clear legal theory by which copyright law could be applied. That "one added requirement" in the AGPL turns it into a EULA, because it's an attempt to regulate for which purposes a user may run the program. If I were to run a modified AGPL'd SSH server on my own hardware, the question of whether I'm violating the AGPL depends on whether I'm allowing others to access it remotely. If the AGPL can be violated without copyright infringement, it's clearly in a different legal category than the GPL.