Administered by:
Normalize the use of #AGPLv3 for its original purpose: to help protect the freedoms of the end-users of networked services like #Mastodon, not to help build a proprietary software business model (in which alternative commercial licenses are sold because the obligations of AGPLv3 are "scary").
(Personal opinion).
@msw AGPLv3 doesn't really do that though -- the license is so badly written that you can entirely comply with it by adding a (real) source code link in your fork, but then running that fork behind a proxy which strips the link. Perfectly legal per the license.
(This all comes from the fact that AGPL tries to enforce usage restrictions, which are against Free Software principles, via weird copyright hacks that don't really work.)
@delroth I don't follow this "loophole" at all. Is there some more detailed writeup that explains in more detail?
@msw it's not a loophole. AGPLv3 is basically just GPLv3 + clause 13, which is "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"
You have to make your fork advertise its source code. But there is nothing that prevents you from running that fork behind an HTTP proxy which then strips this offer.
@msw clearly the spirit of the license would be that "you can't use the forked software in a context where it doesn't advertise its source code to users".
But that's not how it's written/implemented. Simple reason: this would be against the FSF's Freedom Zero, "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose".
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
@delroth I put the "you can run a version behind a proxy that removes the prominent advertisement" argument in the general bucket of "but you can circumvent the license with a simple wrapper".
There are many ways that people have tried to circumvent copyleft licenses, but accidental non-compliance is most common.
Community-oriented enforcement starts with education.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
@delroth I think the license is written the way it is because it needs to be scoped to the licensed work, and not try to reach beyond that work. An attempt to compel specific performance outside of copyright may be seen as "copyright misuse".
I don't see it having much to do with Free Software philosophy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
@msw unfortunately accidental non-compliance is even more common for AGPLv3.
I'm pretty sure that by the strictest definition of the license I'm in violation of it. I'm using Mastodon as packaged by Nix. Nix's build system patches various things like shebangs and paths to binaries. But then my instance's source code link goes to the upstream repo.
Could you make the argument that the changes are not copyrightable? Maybe. But that's a legal defense, not something clear cut.
@msw last I checked a year ago Debian also carried patches in their repos for various AGPLv3-licensed software, without adequately modifying the source code advertisement. Running that software straight from Debian repos might be illegal. Or not, who knows, nobody has ever actually tested the AGPLv3 in courts to the best of my knowledge.