* Florian Weimer <[email protected]> [2021-03-21 13:40]: > * Jean Louis: > > > The AGPL does not enforce the publishing of the source code when used > > server side. > > Why do you say that?
Maybe I am in misunderstanding of that, and maybe those companies converting to proprietary software don't have valid points. AGPL section: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. 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. Maybe as you say point out in your "why?", maybe there is really no need for modification, but there was some problem in understanding on those lines. MongoDB modifies AGPL to this: If you make the functionality of the Program, or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program So they use here "must" and exclude only users interacting with it, but include that license shall make software free for everybody. Example is where only some users have access to service, those could pay let us say US $500 -- now other users would be excluded, they would not be able to interact with software for lack of money, but now cannot get modified version, author included. The word "must" relates to maybe misunderstood part of AGPL "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..." -- maybe this is equivalent to their meaning where they mention "must". > That company previously told their users that the AGPL would not > extend to the software the users wrote using the company's product. > Their software also lacked a built-in compliance mechanism. I was not thinking of those things. But AGPL says that modified version should be modified that is provides compliance. > They also never had to figure out what the AGPL really means because > they had an asymmetric licensing arrangement with their > contributors. I see. > I do think that the AGPL turned out to be poorly worded and should > have used language similar to this GPL clause: It is fine piece of legal document. I have not indicated for it to be poorly worded. We discuss rather than general issue, those specifics that caused few of companies to change their terms. > But given the other factors in the case you raised, I don't think the > AGPL ambiguity was of great relevance in the end. My impression is > that the company never had increasing the amount of free software > available to the general public as one of their goals. The AGPL was > just a marketing tool. And it backfired when it turned out that the > AGPL does not discourage commercial use in the way they assumed it > would. For those authors changing the software to proprietary that is it! You have said it well. For those few changing from AGPL, that still remains to be solved, as there will be other companies following it. Maybe explanation page or more of guidance pages on GNU could help in resolving this issue. It would be good to understand better the actual problem and see if GNU project can assist those authors in future, either with changes to AGPL, or some explanatory page or guidance page. Even better, if there would be some list of attorneys on GNU page related to AGPL and other license that can help with enforcement, then authors would rather like to stick to it, and we would have less software converted to proprietary. License is there, but it does not help those authors to get for example damages, they are inclined to find solutions for their activities. Yet that hurts free software, it is obvious that few software was lost to proprietary. Jean
