[newacct583]

One of the goals of the Affero GPL, in fact, was to close exactly that loophole with respect to hosted software. The rights granted by the license are expressly granted to the users of the software. So in theory SFC can sue for the source code themselves under the AGPLv3. I'm not aware that that has been tested, but it seems reasonable.

[aazaa]

I'd be interested in a link to this legal theory and its application under US Law.

Barring that, what sections of the AGPL are you looking at to make that claim?

[Jtsummers]

From the Preamble:

> 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. [emphasis added]

From 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. [emphasis added]

This brings standing to the users as the license requires that the users be granted access to the "Corresponding Source", defined in Section 1 as:

> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

[sio8ohPi]

I don't see how this creates standing for end-users. AGPL expands the licensees' obligations, but only the copyright holder has standing to sue over violations of the license.

This is analogous to a party that distributes GPL licensed software in binary form while refuses to fulfill their obligations under the license by providing code.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower