112 ms·
Section 13 of the AGPL v3: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer al
by dgl 4y ago
Section 13 of the AGPL v3:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software."
So, if you make any modification to the program, you also have to "prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network" [a copy of the source].
Which it doesn't currently do, so do you have to add a header to every request with a download link, or what? Without any clarification from the authors they can choose to interpret the license however they like.
Even clarification may not help, the vague term is still there in the license. A legal department may suggest you avoid such a license. Usual I am not a Lawyer disclaimer applies.
- theknarf 4y agoIts just means that if you change the code of SŌZU you'll have to have your fork public on GitHub.. Not a big deal.
- hpb42 4y agoIf I understood it correctly, if you change the code of SŌZU, you need to open-source not only your fork, but everything that can be reached/connected to by SŌZU. Google has a policy against using APGL internally, nor in your company equipment[0]. The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. [0] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
- jacooper 4y agoI don't think this true, the idea is that it triggers the same-license requirement even for network accessible code. Where normal GPL only triggers that when the code is distributed, which allowed the SAAS loophole to exist. As for the spreading to other programs part, yes that's the entire point, if you use free code, anything built on it should be free too, to continue giving to the Free/open Eco system.