marcan_42

16 ms·

91.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Are you arguing that creating a program that interacts with another program is "modifying it"? Because then essentially all software is a derivative work of everything else and the entire industry is one giant copyright violation.
92.
by marcan_42 5y ago
They could proxy access to an AGPLv3-licensed application, where such access does not convey copyrightable content. For example, consider a database server that puts up a banner with a link to the source when you open the connection. You
93.
by marcan_42 5y ago
The image is very nice, but the explanation of brightness is a bit confused: > But, of course, the galaxy isn’t nearly this bright. You need a dark sky to see it, and, even then, it’s a barely visible fuzzy patch of light. In order to ap
94.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> The simple solution is to make the program a quine - make it able to serve it's own source code. That way it will always be up to date! Indeed! Unfortunately, the FSF isn't interested in educating users about this requirement
95.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> Party 2 in this case appears to be in violation, serving a service without the offer. If Party 2 has not made any changes to the source code, they have no obligation to make any offer under the license, since the requirement only appli
96.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> should have modified it further to have the correct link, they are the ones that failed to comply with the copyright license terms for the version they run. But by not modifying it in the first place, they avoid entering into any legal
97.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> But generally, the two party problem is solved by them needing to modify the source to remove the link to the source. The idea is the second party does not modify the source, they merely prevent the link from reaching the end user. Sin
98.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Party 1 develops the software, and hosts it on an open endpoint that is not publicly advertised. Party 1 has met their obligations. Party 2 hosts the software, and does so behind a wrapper that does not forward the source code offer (this d
99.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> You're so focused on the first sentence that you missed the one I've put in caps. Once you link to the program, you've created a modified work, which as it says plainly right there in section 9, you cannot do without acc
100.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> The law would be more than happy to accept that there exists something that generates a link or git clone command to stand in as a distribution mechanism for the source archive which a competent practitioner could use to derive the pro
101.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> The copyright holders of the code will not care if someone forks their code, updates it, doesn't update the link, contributes back, and has zero users. You're correct, but the whole point of licenses is having them work as in
102.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> Your two-party scenario displays intent to interfere with contractual rights. Only if those two parties actually colluded with that intent, and you can prove it. Personally, I don't want to be on the hook for proving this kind of
103.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> It is a violation of copyright law to make a modified work without permission Hence why I keep speaking of the time when you make changes to the code. > and the permission here is a contract: the license. Which in this case is
104.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> You setting up a reverse proxy doesn't mean that users suddenly aren't "interacting with" the program. That doesn't matter, because again, what the clause actually says is: > your modified version must p
105.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> If you put a reverse proxy in between you (serving the code) and the user of the software with the intent of disrupting any serving of the code, you are not in fact making the code available. Hence, you can't claim to be meeting y
106.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Indeed, which is why ad blockers are legal. And thus, it follows that my interpretation of the two-party scenario is also correct, because similarly to the user running an ad blocker, the person running a reverse proxy has nothing to do wit
107.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> You're committing the same fallacy as a lot of software people: thinking that the law is a rigid computer program. Contracts are not executed like computer programs. "Contracts are not executed like computer programs" do
108.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> The requirement is not just for modifying code strictly. It's for offering the resulting program to users. This is the same misunderstanding everyone makes, and that the FSF wants everyone to make. > your modified version m
109.
by marcan_42 5y ago
The FSF has long since ceased to listen to anyone. Stallman hasn't changed his views one iota in the past 20 years, on any issue, even ones where he's obviously wrong. I've even emailed him personally; he stopped responding
110.
by marcan_42 5y ago
It would be a lot more helpful if you explained the reasoning behind your understanding, instead of just making an unsupported statement.
111.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> Hmm I would be unsurprised a judge interprets the writing/configuring of a reverse proxy that modifies the HTML output or blocks access to some pages to be the same thing as editing the AGPL code yourself. That would mean anyone u
112.
by marcan_42 5y ago
You're presupposing I oppose the principle of anti-SaaSification. I don't. I understand the problem and why some people care about it. You don't want big corporations to host and sell access to your code without contributing
113.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> I also do not understand why "you need to share the source when you expose" is apparently so much worse than "you need to share the source when you distribute". Because distribution is an act controlled by copyrig
114.
by marcan_42 5y ago
> That's why the author used the AGPL, which requires you make source code available to users who interact with your service. It doesn't, though. That's just the PR the FSF wants you to believe. What it actually does is re
115.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Only because the company in question didn't actually read the license. Read my analysis to see how broken it is. This company likely violated the AGPL (as it is doubtful they followed the source offer requirement when modifying the c
116.
by marcan_42 5y ago
None. For better or worse, stopping people from using (which includes hosting for third parties) your code without publishing the modified source code is incompatible with the Free Software Definition. Any discussion around what a license
117.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand the AGPL and how it doesn't work to protect your (or anyone else's) rights. It really is an utterly broken, non-free license. I've written about this in the past (rea
118.
by marcan_42 5y ago
It's obvious that the hack would work on a technical level, that's fundamental to the whole idea. The question is how complex the logistics of doing it in the real world would be; how you insert the tampered code, how you avoid an
119.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Linux has a checkpatch.pl. If it doesn't already test for Unicode identifiers, it would be trivial to add that. This is a non-issue. You don't ban a new version of a language just because it allows some undesirable things; it&#x27
120.
by marcan_42 5y ago
Linux already uses a lot of C99 features that were GNU extensions before C99, like designated initializers. So in practice, Linux is already C99, and hasn't been buildable on strict C89 compilers in a long time.

More ›