Moving this to license-discuss as it's OT for the SS Public License discussion.
Kyle Mitchell wrote at 11:28 (PST) on Thursday: > There are many loopholes in AGPLv3. I've taken to calling > two of them "API Loophole" and "Container Loophole". Calling these "loopholes" is just rhetoric. The issues you mention haven't been tested in Court under derivative and combined works statues (if I'm wrong and you have cases to cite, please cite). It was never the intention of any copyleft license to go further than copyright law would take it, and as such, if it turns out the things you mention are determined by Courts to not be combined/derivative works, then they weren't in copyleft's reach to begin with. But your argument is your theories of what you *think* would succeed in front of a judge in a copyright case as matters of law. AFAICT, those decisions are not yet made. And, in my experience in courts regarding copyleft, judges really don't like tricky technical means to "get around" making something a combined/derivative work. Engineers sometimes think they're cleverer than judges, but they usually aren't. Judges aren't easily fooled by "work arounds" that seek to circumvent the law, and in my experience when they encounter such "work arounds" of the law being attempted, the judges are become more suspicious that something nefarious is going on. -- Bradley M. Kuhn Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
