3 ms·

Very cool! But this being AGPL has me wonder: if you as a user download an AGPL licensed WASM binary, because the browser is making network connections by desig

by btown 3y ago

Very cool! But this being AGPL has me wonder: if you as a user download an AGPL licensed WASM binary, because the browser is making network connections by design, are you required to share the source with any third party your browser makes any request to? And if your browser has proprietary/not “generally available” compiled/minified code loaded, from Widevine to your corporate Chrome extension, are you in violation of AGPL if you don’t share all the sources to all those things, which by law you cannot have? Not a lawyer, but the idea of AGPL WASM blobs gives me shivers.

graemep 3y ago
> Very cool! But this being AGPL has me wonder: if you as a user download an AGPL licensed WASM binary, because the browser is making network connections by design, are you required to share the source with any third party your browser makes any request to? No. Clearly not. A browser making connections to servers is not the same as a "user interacting with it remotely". > And if your browser has proprietary/not “generally available” compiled/minified code loaded, from Widevine to your corporate Chrome extension, are you in violation of AGPL if you don’t share all the sources to all those things, which by law you cannot have? Only if you distributed the browser with AGPL code in it. If just runs WASM code its no different from any interpreter running GPL code.
pessimizer 3y ago
> are you required to share the source with any third party your browser makes any request to? The source to your changes to the binary, you mean, maybe? I don't understand the question. You seem to be implying that using an AGPL WASM binary would require you to share the browser's source. If that binary were a network application that was serving other clients, it makes sense to me that you'd be required to share modifications that you made to that binary, but I have no idea of how you would include the entire browser in that calculation. If there's anything scary, I'd say it would be that if you were serving a WASM blob to someone's browser, you'd have to be prepared to also distribute the source (and changes) to the binary if it was AGPL licensed.
p4bl0 3y ago
I'm sure it's not on purpose, but that sounds like fear-mongering against the AGPL license. None of the concerns raised here are remotely true. No worries :).

by btown 3y ago

graemep 3y ago

> Very cool! But this being AGPL has me wonder: if you as a user download an AGPL licensed WASM binary, because the browser is making network connections by design, are you required to share the source with any third party your browser makes any request to? No. Clearly not. A browser making connections to servers is not the same as a "user interacting with it remotely". > And if your browser has proprietary/not “generally available” compiled/minified code loaded, from Widevine to your corporate Chrome extension, are you in violation of AGPL if you don’t share all the sources to all those things, which by law you cannot have? Only if you distributed the browser with AGPL code in it. If just runs WASM code its no different from any interpreter running GPL code.

pessimizer 3y ago

> are you required to share the source with any third party your browser makes any request to? The source to your changes to the binary, you mean, maybe? I don't understand the question. You seem to be implying that using an AGPL WASM binary would require you to share the browser's source. If that binary were a network application that was serving other clients, it makes sense to me that you'd be required to share modifications that you made to that binary, but I have no idea of how you would include the entire browser in that calculation. If there's anything scary, I'd say it would be that if you were serving a WASM blob to someone's browser, you'd have to be prepared to also distribute the source (and changes) to the binary if it was AGPL licensed.

p4bl0 3y ago

I'm sure it's not on purpose, but that sounds like fear-mongering against the AGPL license. None of the concerns raised here are remotely true. No worries :).