Back

@downey
Exactly what I thought. I don't think the arguments you're responding to are made in good faith anyway. The clue is here;

@delroth
> AGPL tries to enforce usage restrictions, which are against Free Software principles

Copyleft is not a "usage restriction", it's a prohibition on such restrictions (via proprietary re-use).

> via weird copyright hacks that don't really work

Factually wrong. GPL has been enforced in court on multiple occasions by SFLC, SFC and others.

@msw @wwahammy

@strypey you're fighting a strawman. I never said that copyleft was a usage restriction, or that GPL didn't work.

I said that AGPL's attempt at using a copyright license to try and enforce terms on usage (but not really, wink wink) is an untested hack which is full of loopholes.

I'm unsure why you're inserting yourself in a discussion about open source licenses when you don't seem to differentiate GPL from AGPL.

@delroth
> you're fighting a strawman

I apologize for misrepresenting your point. It might help if your posts laid out your argument in a bit more detail, so we don't have to guess at what the meat of the argument might be.

> you don't seem to differentiate GPL from AGPL.

Since you've clarified that your comments were targeted at clause 13 of AGPL, not copyleft itself, you're right that GPL enforcement is off-topic. Again, my apologies.

@msw @wwahammy @downey

@delroth
> AGPL's attempt at using a copyright license to try and enforce terms on usage

IANAL but my lay understanding is that copyright prevents me making a copy of a piece of code, without permission from the copyright holder. If I can't copy it, I can't use it in any way. A copyright license - which all software licenses are, libre or otherwise - gives me permission to copy, and the copyright holder can use it to enforce any limits on usage they like.

(1/2)

@msw @wwahammy @downey

@delroth
As you said, the only difference between GPL(v3) and AGPL(v3) is clause 13. Again, IANAL, but my understanding of 13 is to clarify that supplying a network service using the code, counts as distribution of the code. So all the terms in the rest of the license still apply, including obligation to provide source code to end users. If it wasn't enforceable, TruthSocial wouldn't have published their source code when merely threatened with AGPL enforcement.

@msw @wwahammy @downey

@msw
> not been argued as "distribution" but rather "public performance".

Ah, I'm guessing describing a network services as a "public performance" is the legal hack that @delroth referred to. Seemed to convince one of the world's most litigious men to publish his source code though, so...
@wwahammy @downey