upvote

points

by eru6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby piperswe3 hours ago|
next
[-]
Those clauses exclude those licenses from some very important definitions of free/open-source software. For example they would fail the Desert Island Test for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
reply
upvoteby pocksuppet3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The Debian project guidelines are not the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't free software, they are just some of many useful guidelines to consider. Another useful guideline is that the user shall have freedom.
reply
upvoteby Arch-TK3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
You are either talking about a license nobody is using (at least I've never heard of it) or misconstruing what the AGPL obligates you to do.

I am going to assume it's the latter.

If you in your house take an AGPL program, host it for yourself, and use it yourself, nothing in the AGPL obligates you to publish the source changes.

In fact, even if you take AGPL software and put it behind a paywall and modify it, the only people who the license mandates you to provide the source code for are the people paying.

The AGPL is basically the GPL with the definition of "user" broadened to include people interacting with the software over the network.

And the GPL, again, only requires you to provide the source code, upon request, to users. If you only distribute GPL software behind a paywall, you personally only need to give the source to people paying.

Although in both these cases, nothing stops the person receiving that source code from publishing it under its own terms.

reply
upvoteby Ethee4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The point he's making is that who is going to actually enforce that? If I take something that has that license and make changes to it, who is going to know? That's the underlying premise here.
reply
upvoteby dymk3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The courts?

Google “examples of GPL enforced in court” for a few

Yeah it requires finding out, but how do you prove a whistleblower broke their NDA?

reply
upvoteby Ethee1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your point is circular, let me bring it all around. If I make a 'clean-room' implementation using an LLM of a software that has a GPL license. How does the court enforce that my black box didn't use the original software in any way if there's no way to know? Does having that software as part of it's training corpus automatically enroll all output as GPL enforceable? This is essentially the question some courts are attempting to answer right now.
reply