Timeline for AGPLv3 - Does indirect use over intermediary servers constitute "distribution"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2023 at 9:11 | comment | added | Simon Farshid | Is this a fair reading? I personally find this interpretation logical and attractive, it feels in-spirit to the copyleft intent of GPL. - In a world without SaaS, any software shared must provide source code for all its GPL parts. Analogously, (I wish that) any SaaS must provide source code of all its AGPL parts (including databases that I cannot access directly). - However, I am also suspicious of this interpretation, since it feels like it requires a lot of "imagination" to arrive at this interpretation, and @MadHatter provided another plausible interpretation... | |
| Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 | comment | added | Simon Farshid | Reading your interpretation to its logical conclusion: [to be on the safe side] the backend & frontend must "prominently offer all users [...] an opportunity to receive the Source of [my modified version of the database]". And the opposite shall be true in general: software making networked calls to modified AGPL code may not be shared unless it prominently provides links to source code for the AGPL code that it remotely accesses, and it must require all software accessing itself over a network to pass on these links to their users. In a way, the S13 requirement of AGPL is therefore "viral". | |
| Jul 23, 2023 at 15:06 | history | answered | ruben2020 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |