On 08/30/2017 10:10 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 21:48:03 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> What do you mean "only if modifications are made"? >> Can you cite the part of the license you read that way? > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html > > "It has one added requirement: if you run a __modified__ program on a > server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must > also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the > modified version running there." (emphasis mine) > > That page did not include "modified" some time ago (>1y); I brought it > to rms' attention out of confusion, and he corrected it. > > As far as the actual license goes: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html > > "The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to > ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available > to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to > provide the source code of the modified version running there to the > users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on > a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source > code of the modified version." > > Section 13: > > "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 [...]" > >> I certainly had the impression that, just like the GPL, the AGPL >> required making the source available whenever conveying, regardless of >> modified status. > > I had that impression too, a while back. > Thanks. But damnit. Sounds like the AGPL has an unfortunate flaw here. Is there not even a requirement that people get any notice that the software being run is under AGPL at all, unless it's modified??