[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 2)

[Bruce Perens]

But would it not be sufficient in this case to simply tell folks where you
got the source, given that it's a public repository? You didn't modify it
yourself.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:09 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:52 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  It's not the ease of compliance, it's the fact that there is a
> compliance requirement at all when no other license has one in the same
> circumstance.
>
> The AGPL also imposes a compliance requirement in your hypothetical
> situation. If you install an AGPL-licensed plugin in your website (in
> any manner, even choosing it from a plugin repository offered by the
> website software project's operators), and the users of your website
> interact with that plugin over the network, then you are obligated to
> provide the source code to your users if the copy you are operating
> *has been modified*. It is not clear whether the license is only
> triggered by modifications that you made, or by modifications made by
> the party who provided the software to you, but if it is only
> triggered when *you* make modifications then there is a
> aircraft-carrier-sized escape hatch in the AGPL. In any case, as the
> operator of the website you would need to be aware of this requirement
> and be able to determine whether the copy you are operating can be
> considered *modified*.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/5e17d54f/attachment.html>