2 ms·
Not really in regards to this particular issue. GPLv3 has the same issue in that it only people who receive the binaries are entitled to the source, and 3rd par
by bragr 3y ago
Not really in regards to this particular issue. GPLv3 has the same issue in that it only people who receive the binaries are entitled to the source, and 3rd parties technically have no right to demand the source. AGPL is a little broader, but if I don't allow anyone else access to my modified AGPL app, again technically no 3rd parties could demand the source from me.
It'll be interesting to see if there is some new generation of licenses that require derivatives in source form to be publicly available, but enforcement seems almost impossible.
- quectophoton 3y ago> [...] licenses that require derivatives in source form to be publicly available Note, this fails the "desert island test" from Debian's Free Software Guidelines[1]. If someone wants their software to be accepted in the Debian package repositories, they should be aware that using this license might prevent them from doing so. I'm not opining on whether that's a good policy or a bad policy, only mentioning that that's a thing. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
- pabs3 3y agoSuch licenses wouldn't meet the Open Source Definition either (as its a copy of the DFSG) and probably not the Free Software Definition either. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition