One thing to note: AGPLv3 (and in fact the whole *GPLv3 family of licenses) also include this provision in Sec. 2:
"You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you." Which, depending on who's getting access to your network, might also impact the analysis. -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:33 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations 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.ope > nsource.org _______________________________________________ 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
