Suprised we aren't seeing more of this
Suprised we aren't seeing more of this
Posted May 5, 2025 2:29 UTC (Mon) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)In reply to: Suprised we aren't seeing more of this by ianmcc
Parent article: Redis is now available under the AGPLv3 open source license (Redis blog)
If I am exempt, I am not bound.
If software is distributed to me as AGPL and I myself do not modify it, it looks like Section 9 frees me of obligation.
That said, the argument to make I guess is that, if a party modifies the software in a way that violates the AGPL then that violation eliminates their right to distribute. Since they cannot legally distribute the software, they cannot pass it to me via the AGPL. Giving it to me at all would be a copyright violation and, since they had no license, they cannot provide a license to me. If I use their modified version, it would be unlicensed. I could go get a valid AGPL covered version myself but that version, presumably, would not be one violating the license (otherwise rinse and repeat).
The law is pretty clear. Getting copyrighted work from an unlicensed source does not exempt me from copyright violation. If I was told that they were licensed, I can probably escape liability however I still have no copyright to the work.
Posted May 5, 2025 6:39 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Actually, as far as the GPL is concerned (don't know about the AGPL) I don't believe that's true.
Iirc there is wording in the GPL that explicitly says because you get your licence directly from the copyright holder, how you get your copy is irrelevant. You still get a licence even if you were given the copy unlawfully. So the only bit that's in dispute is the modifications themselves, which the modifier/copyright holder gave you, so they're lawfully licenced too.
The only time that *could* bite you, is if you knew the copy was illegal / improper (for example you pirated a copy from someone else's system without their knowledge).
Cheers,
Suprised we aren't seeing more of this
Wol