[mikekchar]

It's an interesting point, but I think you are looking at it from the wrong point of view. As far as I understand, the AGPL kicks in on "propagation" -- which in the important case means "making available to the public". The license is with the operator of the service, not with the end user of the software.

The consideration is the software itself. In exchange, you are granted a license. The license requires (in part) that you offer the source code to any user that uses the software. As the service provider, it is copyright infringement to make available the AGPL licensed software unless you agree to the license.

The problem with MongoDB is that they are using the AGPL in a way in which it wasn't intended to be used. This confuses the issue about what you are and are not allowed to do.

[jmillikin]

  > As far as I understand, the AGPL kicks in on "propagation"
  > -- which in the important case means "making available to
  > the public".

That's the GPL, and more broadly, all copyright-based licenses. The AGPL was invented to handle software that didn't need to be downloaded to be interacted with. Think of an HTTP server -- the end user interacts with it, but doesn't download the server binary itself. The AGPL is designed to let the end user have access to the server's source code in that situation.

[mikekchar]

You're confusing propagation with conveyance (which is admittedly very easy to do). From the license:

- To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

- To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

They make the distinction in the AGPL (which I think they don't in the GPL) for exactly the reason you state.

It's exactly the same with any proprietary server software. You can have a copy of the software, but without a license to allow others to run it, then you can't make it available on a network. These days most server software explicitly allows unlimited use in their license, but in the old days it was always per seat licencing.

If the AGPL is invalid, then so are all extant proprietary server licenses.

[jmillikin]

  > If the AGPL is invalid, then so are all extant proprietary server licenses.

I didn't say the AGPL is invalid, I only said it's not a copyright license. Proprietary software sold by the seat uses a contract -- I pay money for permission to have X concurrent sessions or Y unique users.

The GPLv3 does distinguish propagation and conveyance. This allows the license to put fewer restrictions on certain types of copying that are relevant to large organizations.

[mikekchar]

OK. I see where you are coming from now. I disagree with you that the AGPL and prorietary software licenses are not copyright licenses. You only need a license because otherwise you are not allowed to use the software in that way -- because of copyright.

If I'm a server software producer and I sell you a copy of a piece of software, you can't actually use it unless I also give you a license to use it. This is unlike any other kind of machine that I might make and sell to you. If I sell you my fancy coffee roaster, I literally can not force you to use it in a specific way. This is actually why printer manufacturers put software in the ink cartridges -- so that they can force you to agree to a usage license.

The reasoning behind being able to extend copyright to running programs (which I think is BS, personally, but I don't make up the laws) is that the computer that runs the software must load, and therefore copy, the software. You only have permission to do that if the copyright holder gives you permission to do that.

This is where the license comes in. I give you a license to load the software into running memory (and hence run it), on the provision that you follow the rules I state. You don't have to agree to the license, but if you don't agree, then you don't have a license, and you are forbidden by copyright law from running the software.

With the AGPL, the license is given provided that you agree to give the users a compatible license to the software. Again, the contract consideration is: ability to run the software in exchange for agreeing to the terms.

You are right that the GPLv3 does reference propagation. I should have looked. It mentions it specifically to state that the GPL does not come into effect on propagation, only conveyance (which is the main difference between it and the AGPL).

Edit: spelling