In our analysis at Bloomberg, we settled on the stricter interpretation for the reasons hinted at by Bruce; we cannot guarantee that *only* employees would be the ones accessing an internal instance which may contain modifications; contractors, interns, vendor representatives, etc. all may end up having access to such an instance, so it's safer to assume that anyone who accesses it would be eligible to receive a copy of the modified source code under the terms of the AGPL. Thus we don't make any modifications which we would not be willing to publish; at least this allows us to deploy AGPL-covered software internally when such software is the best tool for the task at hand, rather than running away from it screaming like most companies do :-)
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:45 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > > >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] > >>On Behalf Of VanL > >>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:17 AM > >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations > > > > >>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. > > > > I guess I don’t see that employees of a corporation accessing code through > that corporation’s internal network is “remote interaction.” Or is the > argument that it becomes so as soon as the employer offers external access to > the network when employees work from home? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
