[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:23:40 -0700

On 08/30/2017 10:10 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 21:48:03 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> What do you mean "only if modifications are made"?
>> Can you cite the part of the license you read that way?
>   "It has one added requirement: if you run a __modified__ program on a
>   server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must
>   also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the
>   modified version running there." (emphasis mine)
> That page did not include "modified" some time ago (>1y); I brought it
> to rms' attention out of confusion, and he corrected it.
> As far as the actual license goes:
>   "The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to
>   ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available
>   to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to
>   provide the source code of the modified version running there to the
>   users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on
>   a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source
>   code of the modified version."
> Section 13:
>   "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 [...]"
>> I certainly had the impression that, just like the GPL, the AGPL
>> required making the source available whenever conveying, regardless of
>> modified status.
> I had that impression too, a while back.

Thanks. But damnit. Sounds like the AGPL has an unfortunate flaw here.
Is there not even a requirement that people get any notice that the
software being run is under AGPL at all, unless it's modified??

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]