mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.

Administered by:

Server stats:

18K
active users

Normalize the use of for its original purpose: to help protect the freedoms of the end-users of networked services like , 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.)

Matt "msw" Wilson

@delroth I don't follow this "loophole" at all. Is there some more detailed writeup that explains in more detail?

@msw @delroth i believe @marcan has written a bit on the topic. Not sure if stuff is collected anywhere

@Foxboron @delroth @marcan@treehouse.systems I vaguely remember some things over on the bird site that @marcan@treehouse.systems wrote. I likely disagreed with some technicalities, but don't really want to go sitting through the ashes right now...

@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".

gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.

www.gnu.orgWhat is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software FoundationSince 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.

@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.
sfconservancy.org/copyleft-com

sfconservancy.orgCopyleft Compliance Projects - Software Freedom ConservancyThe Software Freedom Conservancy provides a non-profit home and services to Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.

@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.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyri

en.m.wikipedia.orgCopyright misuse - Wikipedia

@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.

@delroth @msw Just imagine a judge asking the question: "you programmed it to do it and then programmed it not to? How is that compliance?"

@silverwizard @msw two different works (the copyright license of one has no influence on the other) and AGPLv3 specifically forbids derivatives to introduce restrictions on usage (clause 2, inherited from GPLv3 and from the core tenants of Free Software).

@delroth @msw There is no such loophole. "must prominently offer" puts it clearly.

@delroth @msw I call bullshit on this particular take. It's not an offer if it's impossible to take it in any practical way. "But sir, we do offer that download, we just make it so no one can see it" is no defense in that case.

@msw @delroth It's not any real loophole just some wacky ideologue theory. And copyright does govern public performance, which is basically what the AGPL is about.

@dalias @msw I don't follow. Public performance is governed by copyright because it's distribution. The output of AGPLv3 software piped over the network is not (usually) the software itself, and not (usually) AGPLv3 licensed.

@delroth @msw Um, no, the law does not consider it as distribution and predates any concern that it might be "distribution" by providing audience a copy to record. It was just deemed something © holder is entitled to control over (whether you agree with that or not).

@dalias @msw do you then interpret "running the software in a way that's user facing" as "public performance" in the context of software?

If so then AGPLv3 explicitly grants you the right to do so, as far as I understand, so this would be irrelevant. "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. [...] You may make, run [...] without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."

(This is the implementation of FSF's Freedom Zero.)

@delroth @msw Yes. You can run it all you want for yourself, but not publicly user-facing if you're not complying with the conditions.