Tim Smith wrote:
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.
But the question is, what is allowed by copyright law? It's the intent of the license that the program offer its source, and that this not be changed. If a U.S. court holds that this is a legitimate provision of the license under copyright law (which it would be, except that the 17 USC 117 provision may override it) then it will be forbidden to remove it. I agree with the skeptics that the AGPL is going to be tougher to uphold than the GPL should it be contested.
If they had wanted something stronger, they could have easily written the license to define modification as being any change from the original.
No, they cannot, because as rjack points out, the courts have decided that a copyright license can only prohibit that which is already disallowed under copyright absent any license. The only thing the GPL (and AGPL) can do is grant you extra freedoms. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
