On 14/6/24 06:29, Dirk Riehle wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wrote this email three times and discarded it; I simply don't know how
to ask.
Final try. If I believe various representatives (on Twitter and
elsewhere) of companies like AWS, they believe they can use AGPL
licensed code and the copyleft effect is wholly contained/doesn't affect
their tech stack at all.
I wouldn't phrase it that way but, sure, apart from the additional
obligations created to remote users, AGPL's scope is limited to
derivative works under copyright law. It was a narrowly crafted
extension to GPL to address a particular ability of service providers to
limit user freedom. It sits awkwardly alongside GPL (which is built on
the assumption that you should ideally be free to do what you like on a
device that you own, not on devices that other people own), but was seen
as a worthwhile option for preserving user freedom in a SaaS environment.
Those who pushed source-available seem to
agree; the SSPL was an attempt to a better copyleft license in the eyes
of their creators, irrespective of this list's conclusion that it was a
discriminatory license.
Yes. The reasoning is identical to proprietary licensing: deny licensees
more freedom, extract more cash. This is built on a perversion of the
idea of copyright that is now well entrenched. Copyleft was designed in
the first place to turn this perversion against itself in order to
preserve and extend user freedom.
Why is that? I look at the definition of "modified code" in the AGPL
license texts and to me it seems to do the trick (copyleft effect). I
find the explanation of conveyance to users less clear i.e. how the
traditional distribution is defined.
The obvious boundary created by device ownership is difficult to project
onto a SaaS relationship.
Is there any recognized published statement that explains whether the
AGPL achieves a network copyleft effect as intended or not? And if the
conclusion is that it doesn't what's the alternative if you want this
effect?
AGPL doesn't intend a "network effect" — at least not as VCs would see
it —indeed as a copyleft license it's intended to prevent this.
- Roland
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
