[License-discuss] What's wrong with the AGPL?

[Dirk Riehle]

On 14.06.24 00:42, Kate Downing wrote:
> I wrote about this at length here: 
> https://katedowninglaw.com/2019/09/08/the-great-open-source-shake-up/

Thanks again; I read it (twice). It is an enjoyable description of the 
IP / business strategies behind single-vendor open source cloud 
infrastructure components. I have written many such explanations as well.

My question however was: How/why does the AGPL fail to be a cloud 
copyleft license? (If it does.)

The closest you say is: "But even the AGPL’s obligations can be avoided 
by simply not modifying the AGPL 3 code, which there is often no reason 
to do, or by building layers between the AGPL 3 code and proprietary code."

I disagree. Covered code according to the license (section 0. 
Definitions) is not only code which modifies the original code, it is 
also code that uses the original code (the interface symbols of a 
function call necessarily migrate into the client code). This is classic 
strong copyleft as the Linux kernel has upheld for a long time.

As to building decoupling layers (shims): If they are recognizably 
circumvention techniques, at least German lawyers reassured me, they 
won't fly in court. You can't shake off copyleft just by a layer of 
function call indirections + renaming.

So I don't think that the issue is with the definition of what's covered 
by copyleft, but rather with the trigger, i.e. the "conveyance". Also 
from the AGPL section 0. Definitions: To "convey" a work means any kind 
of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. 
Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no 
transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

I guess it is the "mere interaction" is the phrase which kills the cloud 
copyleft effect? The rest of the license seems to me to argue against 
this statements, and for the longest time people called the AGPL a cloud 
copyleft license.

Maybe for clarification (my definition of cloud copyleft): A third party 
who uses covered code through a network has the right to request and 
receive the source code of the covered code under its original license.

What am I misunderstanding?

Thanks, Dirk




> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:30 PM Dirk Riehle <dirk at riehle.org> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wrote this email three times and discarded it; I simply don't
> know how
> to ask.
>
> Final try. If I believe various representatives (on Twitter and
> elsewhere) of companies like AWS, they believe they can use AGPL
> licensed code and the copyleft effect is wholly contained/doesn't
> affect
> their tech stack at all. Those who pushed source-available seem to
> agree; the SSPL was an attempt to a better copyleft license in the
> eyes
> of their creators, irrespective of this list's conclusion that it
> was a
> discriminatory license.
>
> Why is that? I look at the definition of "modified code" in the AGPL
> license texts and to me it seems to do the trick (copyleft effect). I
> find the explanation of conveyance to users less clear i.e. how the
> traditional distribution is defined.
>
> Is there any recognized published statement that explains whether the
> AGPL achieves a network copyleft effect as intended or not? And if
> the
> conclusion is that it doesn't what's the alternative if you want this
> effect?
>
> Thanks for bearing with me.
>
> Dirk
>
> -- Confused about open source?
> Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
> --
> Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
> Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
> not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official
> statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
> opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not 
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements 
> by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org 
> email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-- 
Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550