[License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

[Smith, McCoy]

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Howard Chu
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:09 AM
>>To: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
>>Cc: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

 
>>> I think what you're saying is that, assuming your interpretation of 
>>> AGPL (including but not limited to section 13) is correct, a would-be 
>>> LDAP implementation with an AGPL-licensed dependency would be forced 
>>> to choose between compliance with the standard and compliance with 
>>> AGPL?

>>That sounds like a fair summary, yes. Also, simply adding a non-standard extension to our server to meet this license requirement doesn't solve anything, if all LDAP clients aren't also modified to recognize the extension, and that in particular seems an unrealistic >>task.


I'm curious if this is simply a drafting/interpretation issue, or something else.  For example, if Section 13 of AGPL said:

"if you modify the Program, you must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software."

Instead of

"if you modify the Program, *your modified version* must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software."

I always understood the intent of this clause was that if your modified Program was offered for remote interaction to users, then those users should have a way to get the source, not that the actual modified program had to provide the mechanism to get the source.