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

[Kuno Woudt]

Hi,

On 10-06-14 16:10, David Woolley wrote:
> 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.

I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can 
license it as they want.  Including selling it to you under AGPLv3, 
while not offering a download themselves for their users.

-- Kuno.