[License-discuss] Trigger for licensee obigations

[VanL]

Hi McCoy,



With regard to most software licensing, including FOSS licensing, network
interaction is not an issue.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> >>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.
>


The difference is that the AGPL is overbroad to whom licenses must be
offered. Here is the first paragraph of Section 13, with emphasis added:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer *all users
> interacting with it remotely through a computer network* (if your version
> supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
> Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from
> a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of
> facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include
> the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU
> General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following
> paragraph.


In contrast, look at AGPLv3 section 10, covering "entity transactions",
that deals with entity-level issues associated with licensing.

I think a court would be more likely to interpret "all users interacting"
with the software exactly as-is. This is especially because the purpose of
this clause is to provide all network-interacting users a copy of the
source code to the modifications. If the corporation was trying to restrict
access to the source code for the modification - for example, to maintain a
trade secret - this would be directly contrary to the stated purpose and
intention of the license.

It comes down to legal interpretation and your risk tolerance, but this is
the way I advise my clients.

But either way, turning briefly back to the CAL: regardless of whether the
AGPL fails or not in this regard, the CAL offers a private right of use in
this situation.

Thanks,
Van
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190702/15938977/attachment.html>