3 ms·

I don't see anything wrong with the AGPL. If $bigCorp wants to rent access to improved versions of my software, they should give me the changes.

• pabs3 4y ago
  AGPL doesn't require that $bigCorp give you the changes, only that they give their users the changes. You could get changes from existing users, but they might not be willing or able to help you. You could become a user, but that could be expensive or $bigCorp could just ban you from the service.
  • YPPH 4y ago
    I really can't say whether that's correct or not. IANAL. The licence in terms says you must give Corresponding Source to users "interacting with it remotely through a computer network". Does it suffice if I initiate a connection to a public $bigCorp server (and receive "access denied")? Or must I be able to successfully connect? Maybe $bigCorp could put a proprietary authentication proxy in-between to avoid me "interacting with" the software. So, let me narrow my comment to address what you've said. If $bigCorp wants to rent me access to improved versions of my software, they should give me the changes.
    • pabs3 4y ago
      Your revised comment is definitely correct now. Not sure about your questions since IANAL but I guess it depends on the details of how $bigCorp's server setup works. If they have some other software that controls access to the AGPLed software, then maybe they don't have to give non-customers source code. If the login form comes from the AGPLed software, but non-customers don't have a login, then maybe the non-customers do interact with the software in a limited way, so source code obligations may come into play.