[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:15 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. The AGPL is ambiguous in its application in a corporate context. For example, if a modified version of an AGPL program is used within a company, and not provided to any outsider, do employees have rights to the code to the modified version? I would argue that they do, and that the employer cannot prevent the spread of trade secret AGPL programs because to do so would be an additional restriction.

You're not the only one; this is how our policy was decided, and we
don't even bother treating modified and unmodified versions
differently. If a user has direct access to the services provided by
an AGPL-covered work, then as far as our policy is concerned we are
obligated to provide the source code under those terms. (In this
context 'we' and 'our' refer to my employer, Bloomberg, where I helped
formulate this policy). I do wish that the license more directly
addressed this situation, though.