3 ms·

Here's the hypothetical: Suppose work W is licensed by Foo under AGPLv3 but does not support remote network interaction. Bar gets a copy of W and modifies it (c

Here's the hypothetical: Suppose work W is licensed by Foo under AGPLv3 but does not support remote network interaction. Bar gets a copy of W and modifies it (call the modified version Y) such that Y now does support remote network interaction when it is run on a server. We assume that Foo, the original copyright holder of W, did not have to "comply" with AGPLv3 section 13 not ony because there was no AGPLv3 licensor upstream from Foo but also because W wouldn't have triggered section 13 under any reasonable reading, since W was not 'remote-network-interactive' software. Clearly if Bar publicly deploys Y, Bar must comply with AGPLv3 section 13. The question is whether Bar has to do something like ensure Y presents a download-source link if Bar merely publishes Y for others to download and install themselves. Bradley's view is that Bar does have such an obligation, for two reasons. One, this is how Bradley reads the text of AGPLv3 section 13 paragraph 1. (I admit that this is one plausible reading of it.) Two, if this weren't the proper interpretation, then there would be a loophole of sorts, or at least a policy frustration, in AGPLv3: If Bar gives Y to Baz, and merely complies with the GPLv3 subset of AGPLv3, then Baz will have the Corresponding Source, but Baz will have no obligation to make that source code available to Baz's users of Baz's deployment of Y. Those users will thus never get the improvements Bar made to W unless they also get a compliantly-distributed copy of Y from Bar. Bradley was closely involved in the drafting of the original (2002) AGPL and I think his interpretation is influenced by that. RMS sided with Bradley: he felt that in this scenario Bar had to do something to Y to make sure that when Y was run it would comply with the source code availability requirement of AGPLv3 section 13. I don't believe this interpretation has been recorded in the FSF's GNU Licenses FAQ yet. I don't have any link or reference other than what I'm reporting right now (this came out of an email discussion). Note that I do not think RMS would take the view reported above if W had been remote-network-interactive software, though I have not asked this question of RMS. W failing to "self-comply" with AGPLv3 section 13 in that case ought to mean that no downstream distributee ought to be held to have to comply with it (somewhat like (A)GPLv3 5d/GPLv2 2c, which was part of the inspiration for the original AGPL).

teddyh 13y ago
The key here is that Bar modifies W to create Y. At that point section 13 paragraph 1 of the AGPL becomes relevant, because Bar has modified the program. My point was that if Bar does not modify the program, then section 13 paragraph 1 does not apply, and Bar is not obliged to insert code to satisfy the condition stated there. You have corrected my slight misconception of the AGPL though; I originally thought Bar could modify W to create whatever he liked without having to insert a facility to download source code, if none previously existed.

teddyh 13y ago

The key here is that Bar modifies W to create Y. At that point section 13 paragraph 1 of the AGPL becomes relevant, because Bar has modified the program. My point was that if Bar does not modify the program, then section 13 paragraph 1 does not apply, and Bar is not obliged to insert code to satisfy the condition stated there. You have corrected my slight misconception of the AGPL though; I originally thought Bar could modify W to create whatever he liked without having to insert a facility to download source code, if none previously existed.