4 ms·

IANAL but my understanding is that agpl requires you to publish server code if that code uses code under agpl, because consuming an api is equivalent to distrib

by bsaul 4y ago

IANAL but my understanding is that agpl requires you to publish server code if that code uses code under agpl, because consuming an api is equivalent to distributing the code.Aka that "calling an api which uses agpl code" is equivalent to using the code itself ( which means you should, as an api consumer, have access to the source eventhough you actually downloaded no binary). e2e means server never does any encryption or decryption so i don't think they'll have any signal code running on their server. They will however be required to open source their application code. Edit : and i think open sourcing twitter app would be a stunning move, that elon is totally capable of.

mjg59 4y ago
There seems to be a bunch of code in the Twitter app that's licensed from other third parties, so unless they're fine with their code being re-licensed under AGPL it's not possible to release the app under those terms.
eadmund 4y ago
> "calling an api which uses agpl code" is equivalent to using the code itself No, not at all. If a server is AGPL-licensed, clients may have whatever license they want. If a client is AGPL-licensed, servers may have whatever license they want. What the AGPL does is provide that if code under the AGPL is used to provide network services, then clients of those servers are entitled to the server source code. You may read the terms here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html There is no copyright mechanism by which the AGPL could apply to clients of an AGPL server.
- bsaul 4y ago
  I don’t think we understood each other. I’m saying twitter should have to release their client code *if their client code uses libsignal*. What i’m saying about server code is the logic of agpl. GPL is about providing the means for users to obtain source code of the binary they’re running. There was a gap with api, where a given library feature could be exposed through network services and since no binary were downloaded then the code wouldn’t required to be open sourced. AGPL fixes that. But we both agree that client code and server code are independent relative to their licensing terms.

by bsaul 4y ago

mjg59 4y ago

There seems to be a bunch of code in the Twitter app that's licensed from other third parties, so unless they're fine with their code being re-licensed under AGPL it's not possible to release the app under those terms.

eadmund 4y ago

> "calling an api which uses agpl code" is equivalent to using the code itself No, not at all. If a server is AGPL-licensed, clients may have whatever license they want. If a client is AGPL-licensed, servers may have whatever license they want. What the AGPL does is provide that if code under the AGPL is used to provide network services, then clients of those servers are entitled to the server source code. You may read the terms here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html There is no copyright mechanism by which the AGPL could apply to clients of an AGPL server.

bsaul 4y ago
I don’t think we understood each other. I’m saying twitter should have to release their client code *if their client code uses libsignal*. What i’m saying about server code is the logic of agpl. GPL is about providing the means for users to obtain source code of the binary they’re running. There was a gap with api, where a given library feature could be exposed through network services and since no binary were downloaded then the code wouldn’t required to be open sourced. AGPL fixes that. But we both agree that client code and server code are independent relative to their licensing terms.