I would think that software being accessed only by employees, whether
through SaaS or by installation on a workstation, constitutes private
use by the licensee. I would extend that to public access, if that
access is limited to hardware that is under the control of the licensee,
such as a kiosk for in store ordering or for security purposes within an
office building.
Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com
On 7/2/19 12:35 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
*>>From:*License-discuss
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL
*>>Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM
*>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
*>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations
Let's work it through: The licensee in this case is the corporation: it
is the one exercising the rights under the license. I assume that all
the employees downloading, modifying, and running the AGPL software are
doing so at the direction of their employer and, as is typical, their
copyrightable output (in the modifications) is assigned to the employer
as either a work for hire or under the employee works doctrine.
Per section 13, every possible licensee, must be offered/given a copy of
the source under the AGPL when they participate in a network
interaction. Thus, when the employee participates in the network
interaction with the modified AGPL software, that employee
*individually* receives a license, just as they would if the were
external to the corporation.
But if they are acting on the behalf of their employer, are they not
simply the “licensee” in this case? Hence the definition of “you” and
“licensee” to encompass organizations.
This is because the AGPL does not have any concept of an affiliate, only
of someone who participates in a network interaction.
Many of the OSI licenses don’t encompass the concept of Affiliate. And
most licenses I have seen that do encompass this concept definite it as
a controlled, or controlling entity, not an employee.
As soon as the employee has an individual license to the modified work,
the game is up; no other restrictions can be placed upon that employee's
further distribution of the AGPL software lest the imposition of those
restrictions place the corporation itself out of compliance.
Only if you assume that AGPL’s definition of “you” and “licensee” would
separately encompass employees acting on behalf of their employers.
Note that in the earlier discussion on L-R, Rick Moen also confirmed
that this was how he analyzed the AGPL as well.
I would think the FSF’s opinion on this point would be more persuasive.
Or, perhaps some case law that states that unless a license separately
articulates that employees acting on behalf of their employer are not
covered by the license rights to their employer.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
