41–50 of 145 posts
This makes absolutely no sense. I'm almost certain that Square lawyers fucked up big time. They looked at the AGPL and completely misunderstood the context. There is no way in hell anyone can interpret AGPL in a way that makes Square responsible for any license violations their customers make selling software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Network GPL, like GPL but if any system in your network (think of a chain of micro services) uses an AGPL/AGPL-like dependency, then all of your services have to be open sourced too.
He's mocking the fact that the title says APGL instead of AGPL
Square is taking a conservative approach on what a “modified version” as used in the AGPL is. It hasn’t really been litigated so different lawyers have different opinions. Square’s position appears to be combining Square’s products with AGPL code creates a “modified version” of the AGPL code and would require providing the code for Square’s products.
The restriction applies to software sold in their online store. It is not possible to interpret "Interacting with Program through a computer network" as distributing software via online store. The program must be running and executing it's code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Network GPL, like GPL but if any system in your network (think of a chain of micro services) uses an AGPL/AGPL-like dependency, then all of your services have to be open sourced too.
That's not true although it is easy to misunderstand AGPL in this way. You only have to provide the source of derivative work, and only to users of your service. So only the micro service using AGPL code. If you use an AGPL database for example, you don't have to provide any source code unless you change the source code of the database. This idea was behind the business models of Rethink DB and Mongo DB.
A microservice doesn't get around it if it's tightly coupled. It would only be enough if your main application was not dependent on the AGPL microservice (e.g. you have another image processing microservice that provides perfect parity).
This makes absolutely no sense. I'm almost certain that Square lawyers fucked up big time. They looked at the AGPL and completely misunderstood the context. There is no way in hell anyone can interpret AGPL in a way that makes Square responsible for any license violations their customers make selling software.
This almost certainly is about keeping Square’s code closed source, not anything to do with Square’s customers selling software.
>3. Online Store > I. Your Content and Content Restrictions
Square is taking a conservative approach on what a “modified version” as used in the AGPL is. It hasn’t really been litigated so different lawyers have different opinions. Square’s position appears to be combining Square’s products with AGPL code creates a “modified version” of the AGPL code and would require providing the code for Square’s products.
Conservative approach would be taking approach that is possible interpretation of the license. Their lawyers made just a mistake. The restriction applies to software sold in their online store. It is not possible to interpret "Interacting with Program through a computer network" as distributing software via online store. The program must be running and executing it's code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be GPL but I would guess it's not AGPL. AGPL requires you to open source the code to run the service. They've not done that. Their legal people are likely on top of this. It's not hard to run a SaaS and avoid all AGPL
How does "linking" works in this regard? If I have an internal AGPL service do I have to open source that too? I mean my end users never interact with that service. They interact with a - let's say - proprietary one. And that service is the client to the AGPL service. Or anything AGPL touches turns into AGPL? What is considered touching? If I use an AGPL firewall do the packets turn into AGPL? If I use an AGPL log ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservative approach would be taking approach that is possible interpretation of the license. Their lawyers made just a mistake. The restriction applies to software sold in their online store. It is not possible to interpret "Interacting with Program through a computer network" as distributing software via online store. The program must be running and executing it's code.
The restriction applies to anyone “using Square Point of Sale, Customer Engagement, Appointments or Employee Management, Square Online Store, and any associated products and services”. I’m not sure why you think it only applies to people selling software. Nothing in the terms says that.
> Additional Point of Sale Terms of Service >3. Online Store > I. Your Content and Content Restrictions
What's APGL? Anti Personnel Grenade Launchers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be GPL but I would guess it's not AGPL. AGPL requires you to open source the code to run the service. They've not done that. Their legal people are likely on top of this. It's not hard to run a SaaS and avoid all AGPL
How does "linking" works in this regard? If I have an internal AGPL service do I have to open source that too? I mean my end users never interact with that service. They interact with a - let's say - proprietary one. And that service is the client to the AGPL service. Or anything AGPL touches turns into AGPL? What is considered touching? If I use an AGPL firewall do the packets turn into AGPL? If I use an AGPL log ag…