101–110 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This almost certainly is about keeping Square’s code closed source, not anything to do with Square’s customers selling software.
It's clearly not. It's term related to software sold in their online store. >3. Online Store > I. Your Content and Content Restrictions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And even if there were liability concerns due to copyleft or other clauses in AGPL, singling out AGPL makes no sense. If they want to avoid copyleft, it should be better phrased like so.
It's almost like they used some kind of AI software to scan legal documents, then it found sentence fragments like " .. opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network ..". You need artificial stupidity to misunderstand the "Interacting with Program through a computer network" in the way Square seems to understand it. Distributing software via online store is not interacting with th…
Has that been tested in a court yet? If it hasn't, then a lawyer would immediately see risk.
I mean, look at Oracle vs Google on whether or not an API is copyrighted.
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.
And even if there were liability concerns due to copyleft or other clauses in AGPL, singling out AGPL makes no sense. If they want to avoid copyleft, it should be better phrased like so.
Relevant quoted text from the article: > B. Content Restrictions. In addition to the restrictions set forth in these Additional Product Terms, the General Terms and Payment Terms, you will not: [...] > 15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;
What about: - AGPL v2? it says: > This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. - Dually licensed software? Does this prohibit software licensed under BSD and AGPL? Granted, the only reason to do th…
"15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;"
Which perhaps could be interpreted as version 0.3 or later?
I don't know if the response here is good, but https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078... , gives a rationale for not including any AGPL "in" another work and might thus be the reason for the exclusion. See also, https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2630... .
I'd rather not have code source available under things like AGPL than run the risk with the minefield for lawyers it becomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah so if your service completely unrelated to the Stripe service uses AGPL you have to remove it? Doesn't sound good at all
Yes. AGPL attempts to infect with copyleft all services it is integrated with, so contractually prohibiting AGPL integrations is the only defense against AGPL infections.
If the AGPL program is unmodified, you don't have to share its corresponding source no matter what it is integrated with.
If the AGPL program is modified, you only have to offer the corresponding source of that program, not all programs that connect to it over the network.
From the comment thread, there seems to be a bit of confusion on what the AGPL actually can do, so people are just avoiding things under AGPL as an abundance of caution. It seems that the license has never been tested in legal challenges. Seems like this would be something right up the EFF's alley. Is it really in the open source community's advantage to have something this confusing lingering for so long, or would i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code. This is an outrageous claim. Citation needed.
Dude, I literally didn't know what agpl is. I found: >Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong. after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. It's a sum…
Honestly we should be downvoting comments like these more. The AGPLv3 isn't new and the original text isn't that long. We don't need incorrect third hand summaries of the license text with additional wild speculation and unfounded advice. Everyone writes comments here like they are an authority on every topic, but it's a good reminder that many authoritative-sounding comments aren't any better than gossip.
Basically everyone I've talked to has an incorrect understanding of the AGPL and it's not because the original text is ambiguous (although there are parts that are ambiguous). It's because people read and write bad summaries and until the common knowledge is completely wrong.
Here is a good summary: the AGPLv3 is essentially the GPLv3 with the addition of section 13:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And even if there were liability concerns due to copyleft or other clauses in AGPL, singling out AGPL makes no sense. If they want to avoid copyleft, it should be better phrased like so.
From the very specificity of the restriction, I gather that they're not copyleft-adverse. They're "Don't upload stuff that risks us being forced to divulge our closed-source code.". Without the prohibition, even if a user of the service included some AGPL libraries without Square's knowledge, a cunning lawyer could argue that Square was complicit in distributing this code to end-users and thus liable. The prohibition…
And AGPL isn't the only "must publish all your server's source code" license available, so to prohibition is too specific if that's the actual reason.
Scratching Square off my list of service providers. I bet half of their datacenter software is in some way or the other using AGPL-licensed stuff; hypocrisy is just insane.