|
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
Where would you conclude that from the text of the AGPL? I'm looking at the
current version (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agp
l-3.0.html) and find nothing like that in it. In fact it seems to explicitly
say the opposite in Section 2, Basic Permissions:
The output from
running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work.
That seems to indicate that
the output from an AGPL service is not itself covered by the AGPL, unless that
output is or includes a sufficient quantity of the code of the service itself
that it'd be considered a derivative work. This is similar to many other
situations: the output of the GCC compiler is not subject to GCC's
license, for instance, unless what you're compiling happens to be GCC or a
modified version of it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
The
AGPL contains the
word 'consumer' four times.
It does not contain the phrase
'consumer over
network' at all.
It the context of the AGPL, 'consumer' is part of
the
phrase 'consumer product'. If you distribute
a physical object that has some
AGPL software installed,
you are required to distribute the source code for the
AGPL software.
I found no restrictions on the license for client
software that remotely accesses a service provided by
AGPL
software.
What are you employer's lawyers smoking?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|