On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker > layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never > *directly* interacts with public users "remotely through a computer > network"? > > Your interpretation seems to allow for this simple loophole. Hence I > am inclined to think that the FSF's interpretation could be > different (even though I don't know which). > > How can we include the above-mentioned backend, but not, say, the web > server or the kernel that runs the web server?!? > > Do you see what I mean? > Where do we draw the line?
I agree that the clause is problematic. Either it catches more than is should, or is so narrow as to be easily circumventable. To some extent the effect of this licence is going to depend on how it plays out in practice. However, its origins in the Affero project may be useful in determining what sort of applications are intended to be covered. > Since this interpretation would allow for a simple AGPL circumvention > strategy (Mark Modifier modifies the application leaving the "get > source" button untouched, but Sean P. Serviceprovider runs the modified > application after removing the source tar archive from the server > filesystem), I suspect the FSF's interpretation will differ. Well, on this one I feel a lot more confident. The wording is absolutely clear. The words "if you modify the Program" are a gateway to the rest of the clause. If you don't modify it, it doesn't apply to you. And I imagine this is deliberate on the FSF's part, to avoid imposing any restrictions on use-without-modification (which would be blatantly non-free). The fact that it leaves an open door to Mark and Sean is just an unavoidable consequence of this. The clause attempts to mitigate this by requiring the source download to be a prominent part of the program as modified (i.e. something visible when the program is used without further modification, such as a homepage link to the source download page). So Mark's version would need to include a link to the source, and Sean would then either need to retain that link (and thus provide the source himself, if Mark used relative links) or have a dead link, which would result in community pressure. Or remove the link, in which case he's modified the program, and is caught by clause 13. Ta-da! John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
