what defines source code in (A)GPL ?

Wed Jul 7 18:31:22 UTC 2010

> Subject: Re: what defines source code in (A)GPL ?
> From: chuck at codefab.com
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:08:28 -0700
> CC: harriers at windowslive.com
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> 
> Hi--
> 
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Harri Saarikoski wrote:
> > Wanted to complete my earlier thread "protecting an Innovation from unlicensed abuse by a rival commercial 3rd party‏". Thanks to all who replied in this complex matter back then, helped me a lot. Our plan of action is most likely going to be to patent the Innovation, and then be able to release products containing it as open source (under tri-licensing option where non-commercial users are separated from regular commercial clients and especially from commercial rivals, with prevention to use in act for the latter group only). 
> 
> Honestly, I don't see the point.  None of the OSI-approved open-source licenses allow one to either restrict commercial use, and neither will they prevent someone who obtains a copy of the source code from redistributing it downstream to anyone they please, including your commercial rivals.

This I think we adequately covered in my earlier thread, see below on my current concern.

> 
> If you intend to prevent somebody-- anybody-- from using your software, then open source licenses are not what you want to use.  Of course, from your description, you have some idea or additional software which is based upon a AGPL-licensed software created by someone else.  You cannot redistribute your stuff together with the AGPL-licensed stuff without complying with the terms of the AGPL.
> 
> > I have one more question: As mentioned in that thread, our innovation can be implemented using the AGPL covered software without modifying the source code, i.e. using the methods in their standard distribution in a certain way known only to me. Can someone confirm to us what that license says about copylefting methods that only "use the GPL software" in a 'smart' way ? (as opposed to what we know that it explicitly specifies that any modification of source code to be copylefted). Are we liable to document this method of using in the Software+ distribution ?
> 
> The exact phrase "use the GPL software" does not appear in the AGPL, so it's hard to know what you are asking about, but I suspect this is the relevant section:
> 
> "10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
> 
> Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

This section and your point thereto seems to address the earlier, 
already covered question. Naturally, if you tweak the code and sell it, 
you are subject to copyleft as specified in GPL. We are ok with that, as well as with any fundamentalism attached to enforcing open source licenses. However, that is not the current question: I have studied the AGPL, religiously I might add. I haven't found a section that specifies if copyleft is to be enforced when the modification of the AGPL covered work has not required a tweak of its source code, i.e. no new methods, not even a slightest tweak of existing methods. As it is objectively only a method of using the AGPL covered software, the only source code required to be distributed is the AGPL covered software, not my method of using the methods in that library.

best, Harri

> 
> An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
> 
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it."
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> -Chuck
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100707/804c6a19/attachment.html>