Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Because of 17 USC 117, and the interpretation of the scope of that in > > > the case law, most use of AGPL software in a software as a service > > > environment will NOT involve "modifying" the software as defined by > > > AGPL, and you won't be required to make your changes available. > > > > 1) Not every place is the United States, and it's quite possible > > that this requirement would be upheld in countries with strong > > "creator's rights" provisions. > > > > 2) It shows the intent of the licensor. Violators would at least > > have their reputations damaged, and with the internet that can > > be no small thing. > > > > 3) Even a U.S. court might be unsympathetic to a defendant who > > argued that removing the AGPL requirement was essential for > > the operation of the program; a violator would run some risk. > > I think you've overlooked what the AGPL itself says. It explicitly says > that if what you are doing is allowed by copyright law, it is NOT > "modifying" as far as the AGPL is concerned. That's the intent of the > licensor.
Me: The AGPL purports to undo 17 USC 117. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Left side of Hyman's mouth: No it doesn't. You've overlooked the definition of "modify". http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Right side of Hyman's mouth: Yes it does. It shows the intent of the licensor. Violators would at least have their reputations damaged, and with the internet that can be no small thing. :-) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
