4 ms·

Not a lawyer, but the reasoning seems flawed to me. Under AGPL, you are given right to use a piece of software, but only if you provide source code to anybody

Not a lawyer, but the reasoning seems flawed to me. Under AGPL, you are given right to use a piece of software, but only if you provide source code to anybody connecting to your server. If you fail to comply, your right to use software is terminated. How whether you distribute parts of that software to end users or not is relevant here?

enriquto 3y ago
> you are given right to use a piece of software, but only if you provide source code to anybody connecting to your server This is a convoluted way to put it! You use the word "use", not to mean the actual users of the program, but a third party that distributes/installs it. It is clearer to see the AGPL as giving rights to the users, not imposing obligations on the distributors. Thus, if you use an AGPL program, you are given the right to see, change and redistribute its source code (regardless of whether the program is running on your own computer or on a third-party server). Copyleft is not meant to restrict, but to grant freedoms to the end users of the software.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > Copyleft is not meant to restrict, but to grant freedoms to the end users of the software. That's the goal, but materially it is restrictive licensing, meant to impose obligations on the distributors, in order to grant freedoms to the end users of the software. I think that pretending copyleft isn't restrictive is misleading, and it ultimately weakens it. It's as important to respect the GPLs as it is to respect any other restrictive, "proprietary" license. One has no more right to violate the GPL than they have to violate Microsoft licensing.
pavon 3y ago
That is the fundamental difference between a pure copyright license and a contract (eg EULA). A license can only grant you permission to do things you weren't able to do otherwise, while a contract can prohibit you from doing things you otherwise would be allowed to do in exchange for granting other permissions. Nothing in copyright law restricts the use of a product. If you legally purchase a book or movie, your are free to watch it whenever you want however often you want. Copyright only restricts copying, creating derivative works, redistributing (and public performance for certain types of work), not use. So to restrict use of software, you need a contract. An explicit goal of the FSF in writing all their licenses is that they do not restrict your existing rights, they only grant new (sometimes narrow) permissions. The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract, but even if treated as a contract, it was still written to not restrict your existing rights.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Thanks for the detailed response! I see the point, although the pure license / contract is still a weird distinction IMO. > The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract But why isn't AGPL explicitly structured as a contract then? They could then grant you the same rights (including ones not covered by copyright law), but on the condition that you follow the copyleft part of the agreement.

enriquto 3y ago

> you are given right to use a piece of software, but only if you provide source code to anybody connecting to your server This is a convoluted way to put it! You use the word "use", not to mean the actual users of the program, but a third party that distributes/installs it. It is clearer to see the AGPL as giving rights to the users, not imposing obligations on the distributors. Thus, if you use an AGPL program, you are given the right to see, change and redistribute its source code (regardless of whether the program is running on your own computer or on a third-party server). Copyleft is not meant to restrict, but to grant freedoms to the end users of the software.

pessimizer 3y ago
> Copyleft is not meant to restrict, but to grant freedoms to the end users of the software. That's the goal, but materially it is restrictive licensing, meant to impose obligations on the distributors, in order to grant freedoms to the end users of the software. I think that pretending copyleft isn't restrictive is misleading, and it ultimately weakens it. It's as important to respect the GPLs as it is to respect any other restrictive, "proprietary" license. One has no more right to violate the GPL than they have to violate Microsoft licensing.

pavon 3y ago

That is the fundamental difference between a pure copyright license and a contract (eg EULA). A license can only grant you permission to do things you weren't able to do otherwise, while a contract can prohibit you from doing things you otherwise would be allowed to do in exchange for granting other permissions. Nothing in copyright law restricts the use of a product. If you legally purchase a book or movie, your are free to watch it whenever you want however often you want. Copyright only restricts copying, creating derivative works, redistributing (and public performance for certain types of work), not use. So to restrict use of software, you need a contract. An explicit goal of the FSF in writing all their licenses is that they do not restrict your existing rights, they only grant new (sometimes narrow) permissions. The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract, but even if treated as a contract, it was still written to not restrict your existing rights.

notpushkin 3y ago
Thanks for the detailed response! I see the point, although the pure license / contract is still a weird distinction IMO. > The courts seem less interested in this distinction, could potentially interpret it as a contract But why isn't AGPL explicitly structured as a contract then? They could then grant you the same rights (including ones not covered by copyright law), but on the condition that you follow the copyleft part of the agreement.