Re:French Court Issues Damages Award for Violation of GPL
by sokoloff on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:48AM
(#39588967)
> The [AGPL] license does fix loopholes for networked use that [allows] SAAS providers to skirt the GPL but it is NOT any more viral than the GPL.
One person’s skirting is another person’s complying. Most of what AGPL proponents argue is skirting GPL by SaaS companies seems like straightforward compliance/conformance to me.
Re:French Court Issues Damages Award for Violation of GPL
by dagmx on Monday March 04, 2024 @10:31AM
(#39591614)
Linux dual licenses glibc so that it can be linked without falling under the GPL
And I’m not saying that AGPL can’t be used, in the same way I’m not saying other GPL can’t be used. You’re misunderstanding the context of the comment.
The comment was in regards to: what are you allowed to do without having to fall under the purview of the license.
In that sense, the AGPL specifically exists to close off many areas that the GPL didn’t touch.
Also static linkage provided you provide users with the object files so that they can re-link with a modified library.
> GPL requires any linkage to open source your parts
With the exception of system components. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion because it's not intuitive why you can ship proprietary software that uses glibc but can't ship proprietary plugins for a GPL program.
> AGPL is the nuclear don’t touch because it is vital to all possible usage types.
That is an absurd viewpoint bordering on FUD. Affero licenses are only a problem if you are trying to work around the license terms. The license does fix loopholes for networked use that allowes SAAS providers to skirt the GPL but it is NOT any more viral than the GPL. Commercial use of AGPL software is absolutely possible - see e.g. cloud providers. Most GPL software probably should be AGPL.