Created
September 28, 2015 17:33
-
-
Save wwahammy/3f1ca9bd4ba8d2028526 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
AGPL worry
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| So let's consider a small business that runs a website that happens to run on GPL'd software. They don't know anything about the GPL but they paid a local web shop to set it up on their shared web host. They don't have to know that the GPL requires them to provide source code if they convey a copy because they don't convey | |
| Let's say the same business runs a wwebsite that runs on AGPL software. They don't know anything about the AGPL but they paid a local web shop to set it up on their shared web host. What happens when someone requests a copy of the source? The answer will likely be "what's source code?" | |
| The local business doesn't want to pay someone to get them the source. And we can't even tell them "give us the contents of directory holding the web site" because that might contain private configuration information which isn't covered by the AGPL. | |
| This is why I don't normally recommend AGPL software to anyone unless they already understand licensing and source code. |
I may eventually develop a blog post about this topic. May I quote you?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@datagrok: I have a higher expectation of what device manufacturer can do. If you're distributing software, I think you're qualified to distribute the source. The question is whether a web site operator in all causes is qualified to distribute the source and I'm not sure in the same manner.
Don't get me wrong, I love the AGPL and think it's the best license. But I'm hesitant to recommend it for every one.