On 14.06.24 00:42, Kate Downing wrote:
I wrote about this at length here:
https://katedowninglaw.com/2019/09/08/the-great-open-source-shake-up/
Thanks again; I read it (twice). It is an enjoyable description of the
IP / business strategies behind single-vendor open source cloud
infrastructure components. I have written many such explanations as well.
My question however was: How/why does the AGPL fail to be a cloud
copyleft license? (If it does.)
The closest you say is: "But even the AGPL’s obligations can be avoided
by simply not modifying the AGPL 3 code, which there is often no reason
to do, or by building layers between the AGPL 3 code and proprietary code."
I disagree. Covered code according to the license (section 0.
Definitions) is not only code which modifies the original code, it is
also code that uses the original code (the interface symbols of a
function call necessarily migrate into the client code). This is classic
strong copyleft as the Linux kernel has upheld for a long time.
As to building decoupling layers (shims): If they are recognizably
circumvention techniques, at least German lawyers reassured me, they
won't fly in court. You can't shake off copyleft just by a layer of
function call indirections + renaming.
So I don't think that the issue is with the definition of what's covered
by copyleft, but rather with the trigger, i.e. the "conveyance". Also
from the AGPL section 0. Definitions: To "convey" a work means any kind
of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
I guess it is the "mere interaction" is the phrase which kills the cloud
copyleft effect? The rest of the license seems to me to argue against
this statements, and for the longest time people called the AGPL a cloud
copyleft license.
Maybe for clarification (my definition of cloud copyleft): A third party
who uses covered code through a network has the right to request and
receive the source code of the covered code under its original license.
What am I misunderstanding?
Thanks, Dirk
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:30 PM Dirk Riehle <d...@riehle.org> 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. 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.
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.
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?
Thanks for bearing with me.
Dirk
-- Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550
_______________________________________________
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 <http://opensource.org> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
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
--
Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550
_______________________________________________
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
