[License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

[Smith, McCoy]

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:21 AM
>>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations


>>Let's work it through: The licensee in this case is the corporation: it is the one exercising the rights under the license. I assume that all the employees downloading, modifying, and running the AGPL software are doing so at the direction of their employer and, as is typical, their copyrightable output (in the modifications) is assigned to the employer as either a work for hire or under the employee works doctrine.

>>Per section 13, every possible licensee, must be offered/given a copy of the source under the AGPL when they participate in a network interaction. Thus, when the employee participates in the network interaction with the modified AGPL software, that employee *individually* receives a license, just as they would if the were external to the corporation.

But if they are acting on the behalf of their employer, are they not simply the “licensee” in this case?  Hence the definition of “you” and “licensee” to encompass organizations.

>>This is because the AGPL does not have any concept of an affiliate, only of someone who participates in a network interaction.

Many of the OSI licenses don’t encompass the concept of Affiliate.  And most licenses I have seen that do encompass this concept definite it as a controlled, or controlling entity, not an employee.

>>As soon as the employee has an individual license to the modified work, the game is up; no other restrictions can be placed upon that employee's further distribution of the AGPL software lest the imposition of those restrictions place the corporation itself out of compliance.

Only if you assume that AGPL’s definition of “you” and “licensee” would separately encompass employees acting on behalf of their employers.

>>Note that in the earlier discussion on L-R, Rick Moen also confirmed that this was how he analyzed the AGPL as well.

I would think the FSF’s opinion on this point would be more persuasive. Or, perhaps some case law that states that unless a license separately articulates that employees acting on behalf of their employer are not covered by the license rights to their employer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190702/0bd82b52/attachment.html>