3 ms·

Doesn't the normal GPL solve this problem as well? I don't have strong opinions for or against AGPL, I'm just not really too sure why the GPL doesn't solve thi

• YPPH 4y ago
  Making software available over a network for interaction does not seem to constitute distributing the software. So, no, it does not cover this situation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_Licens...
  • EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    There could be an argument that the JS frontend that gets sent to the client over the network is part of the software, depending on the project's structure
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • Macha 4y ago
      Yes, but that would only apply to the frontend and derivative works thereof
• Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
  If I give you a webpage like this comment box in which you give a command line to run a GPL tool (e.g. ffmpeg built with --enable-gpl) I do not need to give you any source code because I am not distributing that tool. That applies to more complicated interfaces and even if I were to link libavcodec into the web server because I am not distributing the tool.
• ilyt 4y ago
  It's basically "I don't want people to sell my app as SaaS without disclosing source code" license It solves the "Amazon issue" where company can take open source software, change it, then offer as a service without giving sources. Under GPL you don't get binary if you access a service provided by open source software so you are not entitled to source code of the application Under AGPL just interacting with the software is enough for company to have to provide the source code.