3 ms·

The idea is that the proxy removes all the AGPL compliance features from the web application. So if your app has a View Source link that spits out all the *.php

The idea is that the proxy removes all the AGPL compliance features from the web application. So if your app has a View Source link that spits out all the *.php files on disk, your proxy blocks that link. AGPL prohibits you from removing parts of a program intended to implement a "View Source" link, but it doesn't put any specific limitations on the conduct of other, unrelated programs. The only other thing I could think of to prevent this would be a DMCA 1201 claim - i.e. that the view source link is a DRM system, and that a proxy that removes those links is illegal. Except all v3 licenses explicitly foreclose the ability to make DMCA 1201 claims relating to features of the software. My guess is, Mastodon used AGPLv3 primarily because the Affero clause scares off big tech companies, notably Google. I don't have access to any IRC logs or issue tracker comments to prove this is the case, though.

zerocrates 3y ago
There's much that's untested about these licenses in practical terms. This scheme of producing the source but also blocking it... it's hard to see it standing up in court. Let's assume you modify the AGPL program, so the remote interaction clause kicks in. If you have the software provide links to the source, but you yourself also strip those out before any of those remote-interacting users can ever see or use them, I don't think a court would have a problem saying that you're not actually "offering an opportunity" for the users to download the source and are therefore in violation.
everforward 3y ago
Quoting from the AGPL: "To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying." "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:" I think you would have a very, very hard time arguing that you had conveyed the source under this definition. This is like paying a parking ticket on a credit card, charging it back, and then arguing that it's paid because you sent the money.

zerocrates 3y ago

There's much that's untested about these licenses in practical terms. This scheme of producing the source but also blocking it... it's hard to see it standing up in court. Let's assume you modify the AGPL program, so the remote interaction clause kicks in. If you have the software provide links to the source, but you yourself also strip those out before any of those remote-interacting users can ever see or use them, I don't think a court would have a problem saying that you're not actually "offering an opportunity" for the users to download the source and are therefore in violation.

everforward 3y ago

Quoting from the AGPL: "To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying." "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:" I think you would have a very, very hard time arguing that you had conveyed the source under this definition. This is like paying a parking ticket on a credit card, charging it back, and then arguing that it's paid because you sent the money.