First draft of the Affero GPL version 3 [LWN.net]

First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

Posted Jun 6, 2007 22:21 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386)
In reply to: First draft of the Affero GPL version 3 by Ed_L.
Parent article: First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

The key word here is "remote".

> users interacting with it remotely

I think it's safe to consider all LAN users to be local.
They can walk to you and ask for it.

But yeah, they might want to add a clause saying that the
server download option is only needed if the modified source
isn't already distributed to the users in some other way.

(Log in to post comments)

First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

Posted Jun 7, 2007 3:41 UTC (Thu) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

one could just as correctly argue that any machine other than the one they're actually sitting at is a remote machine, and connecting to it over the LAN is still "interacting [...] through a computer network". the terms will have to be defined more clearly in order to prevent abuse.

First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

Posted Jun 7, 2007 12:45 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

I am just guessing here, but I would imagine that a company's own employees using the code on a lan or even a vpn would not trigger the clause just like giving copies to someone in IT to install on company machines does not trigger the distribution clause in the current GPL.

I welcome opposing views for discussions.

I would think that when an employee is doing something job related, he "is" the business. He is not some third party.

all the best,

drew

First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

Posted Jun 7, 2007 13:36 UTC (Thu) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]

i suppose in practice if your own employees are suing you for not providing source for modifications of an internal application you may have bigger problems than licensing violations afoot.

First draft of the Affero GPL version 3

Posted Jun 7, 2007 14:34 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]

If that would be the case the word "remote" would be superfluous. That, combined with the actual meaning of the word, convinces me that they indeed mean "remote" computers when saying so.

Though you're right there's at least enough room for different interpretations, so clarification is needed to avoid confusion (which not only gives room for abuse, but can also stop people from using the license because they're not sure what they'll get into).