[License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?

[David Woolley]

On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:
> I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.

I think people are missing the point here.  Assuming the requestor has 
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL, 
and, if allowed would make the AGPL effectively indistinguishable from 
the GPL, as you could select a fee that was so large that it was 
unrealistic to exercise the additional rights you gain from the AGPL.

Where you have the option to make an arbitrary charge is for supply of 
the software when you never obtained a copy of the software in any form 
from them and never used the service based on that software.

If the site is AGPL compliant, there is no need for someone who is using 
the service to request anyone to supply the software, as  there will be 
a link providing a free download.

>
>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr <stackoverflowuser95 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
>>
>> "Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
>> script as you want. However you can get the script for $20."
>>
>> Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?