Timeline for AGPLv3 source redistribution: when does it apply to my code for a server-side Java app using an AGPL-licensed library?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2023 at 18:40 | comment | added | Amit Naidu | I wish this answer actually addressed bullet #1 in the question. When all users in a company's internal network have access to the full source code of the non-public, internal-only application, then the terms of the AGPL are met, correct? Since there is no "public" access to the internal network, no public source distribution clause should be triggered. | |
| Apr 5, 2017 at 15:34 | history | edited | Philippe Ombredanne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor edits
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 8:46 | comment | added | Bruno Lowagie | @PhilippeOmbredanne Feel free to edit. However, I don't think the special provision is necessary. We added it to make it 100% clear how the AGPL should be interpreted. It's a pity that lawyers shifted the interpretation of the AGPL, although I realize this is also caused by differences in international law. See ifosslawbook.org and please understand that iText interprets the AGPL under Belgian law. | |
| Apr 4, 2017 at 23:21 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Do you mind making some (even minor) edit to your answer so that I can upvote it again? | |
| Apr 4, 2017 at 23:20 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | It was great to meet face to face at DEVOXX and discuss licensing! Now for the posterity there is one point that was missing in this thread: the licensing of iText has special provisions under section 7 of the AGPL. Which means that we are eventually both correct and best buddies! | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 16:08 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 15:58 | comment | added | Bruno Lowagie | @PhilippeOmbredanne How come my reductio ad absurdum couldn't convince you that your assumption was counter-intuitive? If what you claim were true, the middleman loophole would make the AGPL useless. | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 15:54 | comment | added | Bruno Lowagie | Compare it with the difference between the MIT license and the three-clause BSD license. The three-clause BSD license adds an extra clause about compiled source code that is actually redundant because the Berne convention in 1977 contains a part which expands the protection of the original work to translations too, which accords with the compilation of source code. In this case; I refer to copyright law. Copyright law can't be included in the AGPL because (1.) the AGPL would become bloated; and (2.) copyright law is different in different countries. | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 15:49 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Your point seems to hinge on the fact that you consider reusing a software package that is bit-for-bit identical to the one redistributed upstream means modifying it or adapting it in all cases, correct? I do not see anything in your references that would support this assertion. And FWIW the terms of the AGPL seem rather material when we discuss AGPL, isn't it? | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 14:08 | comment | added | Bruno Lowagie | @PhilippeOmbredanne I have written this in other places, but your question "Which references in the AGPL text do support your take?" is irrelevant, because the AGPL is based on copyright law. See the definition of "modify": To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. Are you saying that you aren't using anyone's copyright when you integrate an AGPL library as a core piece of your own work? | |
| Jan 23, 2017 at 10:15 | history | edited | Bruno Lowagie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1033 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2017 at 9:20 | history | edited | Bruno Lowagie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 159 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2017 at 5:35 | comment | added | Bruno Lowagie | @PhilippeOmbredanne I have created a new Q&A explaining how one could rmake the AGPL act as if it were LGPL if you were right (but you aren't): opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5010/… If you were right, there would be a serious loophole in the AGPL (but there isn't). | |
| Jan 22, 2017 at 14:31 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Note that my question is not specific to iText and the licensing riders that you use in github.com/itext/itextpdf/blob/… . There are two specifics there: 1. you have additional terms per th AGPL Section 7 and 2. you clearly spell out that you interpret that unmodified use triggers copyleft (and even if I disagree) this is something that I addressed in my subquestion 4. and its answer too, for the sake of clarity. | |
| Jan 22, 2017 at 13:54 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Note that I added a new sub-question 4. and also answered it in my answer. | |
| Jan 22, 2017 at 11:23 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | Which references in the AGPL text do support your take? | |
| Jan 22, 2017 at 10:29 | history | answered | Bruno Lowagie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |