3 ms·
Sorry, Freedom 1, not 0. Marcan wrote it better than me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019
by p_l 3y ago
Sorry, Freedom 1, not 0.
Marcan wrote it better than me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019
- snvzz 3y agoUnsurprisingly based on strict readings, and not spirit of the law (judges are human). At the end of the day, it does not prevent the four freedoms unless you're trying to curtail the four freedoms to begin with, much like the GPL and its clauses against patent-based workarounds or tivoization. And it is still a license, the only thing allowing anybody to do anything with that code. The suggested workaround attempts would never fly in court. Even separate legal entities would be deemed conspirators. Full disclosure: IANAL, and I do not like the AGPL at all, personally favoring MIT license.
- p_l 3y agoI'd argue that AGPL veers off from copyright law there into pure contract law. OTOH, most of the world seems to consign licensing entirely into contract law - the license is always a civil contract nothing more, which already causes some issues between reading the text in various jurisdictions. And local "spirit of the law" that backs the license also differs. Also pretty sure at least USA is place where strict reading are at least a viable court strategy, to my understanding.