Hi McCoy,
With regard to most software licensing, including FOSS licensing, network interaction is not an issue. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >>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. > The difference is that the AGPL is overbroad to whom licenses must be offered. Here is the first paragraph of Section 13, with emphasis added: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the > Program, your modified version must prominently offer *all users > interacting with it remotely through a computer network* (if your version > supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding > Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from > a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of > facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include > the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU > General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following > paragraph. In contrast, look at AGPLv3 section 10, covering "entity transactions", that deals with entity-level issues associated with licensing. I think a court would be more likely to interpret "all users interacting" with the software exactly as-is. This is especially because the purpose of this clause is to provide all network-interacting users a copy of the source code to the modifications. If the corporation was trying to restrict access to the source code for the modification - for example, to maintain a trade secret - this would be directly contrary to the stated purpose and intention of the license. It comes down to legal interpretation and your risk tolerance, but this is the way I advise my clients. But either way, turning briefly back to the CAL: regardless of whether the AGPL fails or not in this regard, the CAL offers a private right of use in this situation. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
