Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> writes: > On 09/12/2015 10:38 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: >> Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> writes: >> >>> On 09/12/2015 09:58 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't agree with this; I don't think that everyone should be forced to >>>> further distribute all software >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic). >>>> >>>> But based on your stance that all culture should be modifiable, I at >>>> least understand (and I think also appreciate) where you are coming >>>> from. >>>> >>> >>> I think you are confused. The AGPL and my own views do NOT say that >>> anyone is forced to distribute. Period. >>> >>> If you do *private* things with any AGPL or other cultural works or >>> programs, you can do anything you want at all, period. >> >> I guess that would depend on what you consider private use >> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods) >> > > Yoni, the AGPL does not come into effect if a company uses software > *internally*. That is private. That is what it means. This > interpretation is legally solid enough that no judgment-call or "what > you consider" step is needed.
I can't say anything about what's legal; I'm not a lawyer. My understanding of the situation is that people inside the same organization where the software is deployed are not excluded from the group "users interacting with it remotely through a computer network" merely because they're part of the same organization. -- "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"
