|
|
|
|
|
|
by gjsman-1000
700 days ago
|
|
|
> I think the English is perfectly clear and understandable. Because you are not a lawyer. The points I’ve made have been cited by actual lawyers. Your opinion as a technologist blinds you to the degree of legal ambiguity. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl... https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL Also, the very fact that these opinions exist shows this license is not safe. There’s never a correct interpretation that will perfectly win the day eventually, only rulings. As the AGPL has never been in court before, things could quickly go sideways. As my second link, written by an actual lawyer, puts it: “Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke.” |
|
|
If you have some background knowledge of Google's architecture, this explains exactly why the AGPL is banned there: all code is built from one monorepo where everything is linked together.
> https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL
This completely agrees with what I said. At it's core, the A part of the AGPL only kicks in if:
> “you modify the Program” and > “your [modified] version supports such interaction [remotely through a computer network]”
Yes he calls out various potential problems and a potential loophole, but those same problems are also present in the regular GPL!