Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked > > > about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk > > > at DebConf10 in NYC, Bradley said the AGPL was specifically based on > > > modification, _not_ on public performance or other use. > > > > You have to make the source available in this case. Otherwise it would > > be a trivial way around the AGPL (just have a third party modify the > > program and give it to you). > > Co-author of AGPLv3 here, including the section at issue. You do not > have to make the source available in this case, in general. In unusual > cases of circumvention, like what I believe you are suggesting, the > answer might arguably be different, but in the context of ordinary > Linux distributions, when a user gets AGPLv3-licensed software that > the *distro* has modified, that software is *unmodified* from the > standpoint of that user downstream from the distro and therefore the > user needs to do something to trigger the section 13 requirement. > > Otherwise you have to explain why modification was made to be the > trigger. If the modified/unmodified distinction was meant to be > meaningless, section 13 would have been drafted not to make any > reference to modification. Indeed, other Affero-like licenses > typically are broader than AGPLv3 in the sense that they work by > redefinition of 'distribution' and thus are not limited to cases where > the user has modified the software. This approach was specifically > rejected when AGPLv3 was being drafted. >
So are you suggesting that the AGPL's protections against commercial takeover are basically moot? How would the AGPL be applied in this scenario: Company A starts a business based on unmodified MediaGoblin. They hire a firm, Consultants-R-Us, to manage their MediaGoblin code base and develop a new new video encoder. Their contract with Consultants-R-Us keeps ownership of all code in Consultants-R-Us name, and C-R-U simply gives a tarball to Company A which they then use to serve users. Can we honestly say that Company A modified the software? If not, then what is the point of the AGPL? To protect C-R-U? I am not suggesting that this is absolutely not modification by Company A. However, to a non-lawyer like me, it sure _looks_ like a big hole. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373555743-sup-3...@fewbar.com
