+1 Thanks.
Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com
On 7/3/19 1:22 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
