> The AGPL utilises copyright's policing of the private domain to force > disclosure of otherwise private source code.
This is a statement that I take issue with. The AGPL is a license, like any other. It allows anyone access to the software, provided they are willing to agree to the terms and conditions. In this case, those terms require the source code, modified or not, to retain the same free distribution under which it was downloaded and used. If you download something under the AGPL, you do not own it. You may own a copy of it, but it is under a license. Originally the GPL, and now the AGPL, are meant to enforce effective community ownership. I believe that this is perfectly fine, because I do not think that anyone is entitled to having the FOSS community write his personal software. It is only reasonable that open source coders would require something in return and want to keep their work in the community. If a company wants to close off access to their software, they can write it themselves. When a company takes open source software and uses it as a closed web service, they are effectively making it proprietary. Just because they are using a technical loophole in the GPL rather than lawsuits or copyright to enforce the closed nature of their service does not make it less closed. I am perfectly fine with closed web services existing, but if a company wants to use the years of labor that go into community software, I believe that they should return at least a small portion of the favor. Nick _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
