* Lawrence Rosen: > So, if our community can come up with an adequate definition of > "corresponding source" (or "intimacy") in the open source software context > to enforce the intent of our network services copyleft licenses, I'm all > ears. Neither SSPL nor AGPL currently meet that clarity requirement.
I think the AGPL is pretty clear if you read it as assuming that source access would go like this: “to access source code, change the URL from .php to .phps in your web browser”. The AGPL has problems once you start it applying to software that cannot distribute its own source code in a reasonably straightforward way. Especially if it does not directly interact with end users, so that there is no one there that can make a decision to obtain the source code. On the other hand, if the build process essentially creates a quine, and any source code change you make is accessible to any user of the software via the software itself, I don't think the AGPL is problematic at all. It's the lack of a built-in compliance mechanism that is the problem. That mechanism defines what the author considers the relevant source code, after all. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
