Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Lyberta]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

Hi. I'm working on the video game called Xonotic[1] that was based on
the Quake source code[2]. This code was originally released under the
terms of GNU GPLv2 and I can't find if it has the "or any later version"
clause. I want to license my code additions under GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+. Can
I do this?

[1]: https://xonotic.org/
[2]: https://github.com/id-Software/Quake


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 581 bytes --]

On 08/29/2017 02:53 AM, Lyberta wrote:
> Hi. I'm working on the video game called Xonotic[1] that was based on
> the Quake source code[2]. This code was originally released under the
> terms of GNU GPLv2 and I can't find if it has the "or any later version"
> clause. I want to license my code additions under GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+. Can
> I do this?
> 
> [1]: https://xonotic.org/
> [2]: https://github.com/id-Software/Quake
> 
> 

You'll need the "or any later version" clause from the GPLv2 stuff. You
can ask all the copyright holders if they are willing to add it.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Lyberta]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 487 bytes --]

Aaron Wolf:
> You'll need the "or any later version" clause from the GPLv2 stuff. You
> can ask all the copyright holders if they are willing to add it.

I have talked to other developers and they clarified that the code has
"or any later version" clause. So that means I can add GPLv3+ code to
it. However, can I add AGPLv3+ code to it? GNU says AGPLv3+ and GPLv2
are incompatible, but are GPLv2+ and AGPLv3+ compatible?

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#AGPL


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Isaac David]

Lyberta wrote :
> are GPLv2+ and AGPLv3+ compatible?
yes.
> 

GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are compatible,
AGPLv3+ implies AGPLv3,
therefore GPLv3 and AGPLv3+ are compatible.

GPLv3 and AGPLv3+ are compatible,
GPLv2+ implies GPLv3,
therefore, GPLv2+ and AGPLv3+ are compatible.

-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943


_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 957 bytes --]

On 08/29/2017 02:58 PM, Lyberta wrote:
> Aaron Wolf:
>> You'll need the "or any later version" clause from the GPLv2 stuff. You
>> can ask all the copyright holders if they are willing to add it.
> 
> I have talked to other developers and they clarified that the code has
> "or any later version" clause. So that means I can add GPLv3+ code to
> it. However, can I add AGPLv3+ code to it? GNU says AGPLv3+ and GPLv2
> are incompatible, but are GPLv2+ and AGPLv3+ compatible?
> 
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#AGPL
> 

ALL code under GPLv3 or able to be compatible with GPLv3 is compatible
with AGPLv3 because the GPLv3 has an explicit clause that says the code
can be used in an AGPLv3 project. But that's a one-directional
compatibility, so it requires that the overall combination be under AGPLv3.

In short, GPLv2+ and AGPLv3 (with or without the +) *are* compatible,
but the resulting combo will be AGPL overall.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Isaac David]

Aaron Wolf wrote :
> because the GPLv3 has an explicit clause that says the code can be 
> used in an AGPLv3 project.

in fact, both licenses have to contain such an explicit concession to
each other for the one-way compatibility to work.

> the resulting combo will be AGPL overall

right.

it's also worth mentioning that this doesn't mean the non-AGPL parts
get re-licensed for the new project. it's only the whole combination
that is AGPL, and the GPL(v2+|v3) components' licenses stay as they 
were.

i get the feeling that this has been poorly misunderstood, 
historically. compatibility is often equivocated with relicense-ability.

-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943



_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

> in fact, both licenses have to contain such an explicit concession to
> each other for the one-way compatibility to work.
> 

This bit isn't correct. It's perfectly feasible for a license to say it
is one-directionally compatible (i.e. explicitly allow relicensing or
use in a project of a particular license) without the other license
saying anything about it.

I can write a new copyleft license today that is explicitly
one-directionally compatible with the AGPLv3, and no change to AGPLv3 is
needed for that to work.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Isaac David]

Aaron Wolf wrote :
> I can write a new copyleft license today that is explicitly 
> one-directionally compatible with the AGPLv3, and no change to AGPLv3 
> is needed for that to work.

the only scenarios i can conjure in which this would be possible are
trivial ones: one where your copyleft license is unequivocally (for
the courts) a one-to-one semantic copy of the AGPLv3, or what is more
likely, one where it's in effect a dual license (mutually exclusive
licenses, one of which is the AGPLv3). that's what CC-BY-SA-4.0 and
copyleft-next do.

this is because the AGPLv3, being a copyleft license itself, demands
that derived works carry exactly the same terms. no more, no less:

 > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
 > [...] You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
 > License [...]
 > [...] This License gives no permission to license the work in any
 > other way [...]

there's no other way a licensee combining one work under your
hypothetical copyleft license and another under the AGPLv3 can comply
with the AGPLv3. it would mean subjecting the AGPLv3 part to your
licence terms in addition to the AGPLv3. so until the second copyleft
license corresponds you, it wouldn't matter if your license were
explicitly accepting of it.

that said, it would be great to add an open-ended permission to
combine with future versions of the AGPL (or GPL), if you ever were to
write a new copyleft license. that way the authors of the AGPL could
decide whether to open the gates of compatibility, in which
directions, under what conditions, etc; allowing the existing body of
AGPLv3+ stuff to become retroactively compatible with all works under
your license in a single move.
-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943



_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

On 08/29/2017 05:51 PM, Isaac David wrote:
> Aaron Wolf wrote :
>> I can write a new copyleft license today that is explicitly
>> one-directionally compatible with the AGPLv3, and no change to AGPLv3
>> is needed for that to work.
> 
> the only scenarios i can conjure in which this would be possible are
> trivial ones: one where your copyleft license is unequivocally (for
> the courts) a one-to-one semantic copy of the AGPLv3, or what is more
> likely, one where it's in effect a dual license (mutually exclusive
> licenses, one of which is the AGPLv3). that's what CC-BY-SA-4.0 and
> copyleft-next do.
> 
> this is because the AGPLv3, being a copyleft license itself, demands
> that derived works carry exactly the same terms. no more, no less:
> 
>> 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
>> [...] You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
>> License [...]
>> [...] This License gives no permission to license the work in any
>> other way [...]
> 
> there's no other way a licensee combining one work under your
> hypothetical copyleft license and another under the AGPLv3 can comply
> with the AGPLv3. it would mean subjecting the AGPLv3 part to your
> licence terms in addition to the AGPLv3. so until the second copyleft
> license corresponds you, it wouldn't matter if your license were
> explicitly accepting of it.
> 
> that said, it would be great to add an open-ended permission to
> combine with future versions of the AGPL (or GPL), if you ever were to
> write a new copyleft license. that way the authors of the AGPL could
> decide whether to open the gates of compatibility, in which
> directions, under what conditions, etc; allowing the existing body of
> AGPLv3+ stuff to become retroactively compatible with all works under
> your license in a single move.

You seem to quite misunderstand the whole issue. There's NOTHING the
AGPL needs to say or even CAN say that blocks what I'm talking about.

All I need to say in a license is something like: "This software under
Mynewlicense may be sublicensed specifically under the GNU AGPLv3, in
which case, none of the other terms of Mynewlicense shall apply." or
something like that.

IANAL, but the AGPL having all the "exactly the same terms" clause is
COMPLETELY irrelevant.

The MIT/Expat license or BSD-3 can be used in an AGPLv3 project. There's
no need for the AGPL wording to say so.

This is the whole concept of unidirectional compatibility. An infinite
number of licenses could be written that all have any of a wide range of
terms, permissive or copyleft, and all they need to be AGPL (or just
GPL) compatible one-directionally is to say that *if* the code is used
in an AGPL project, then any AGPL-incompatible terms do not apply.

PROOFOFCONCEPT LICENSE:

This code can be used and modified in any way by anyone for any purpose.
However, this code may only be conveyed to others via a physical
printing of the code on paper placed inside a piñata along with a copy
of this license specifying that the code retains the terms of this
license with one exception: When combined with other code in a project
licensed under the GNU AGPLv3, any form of conveyance is allowed.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Isaac David]

Aaron Wolf wrote :
> All I need to say in a license is something like: "This software under
> Mynewlicense may be sublicensed specifically under the GNU AGPLv3, in
> which case, none of the other terms of Mynewlicense shall apply."

and Mynewlicense yields. this is exactly what i said. Mynewlicense is
in effect a disjunction of various licenses: either Mynewlicense or
AGPLv3. at no point does it apply in parallel to the AGPLv3.

> the AGPL having all the "exactly the same terms" clause is
> COMPLETELY irrelevant.

that clause is the whole reason the terms of Mynewlicense aren't
passed down the line to derivative works, but the AGPL terms are. it's
also the whole reason why _both_ GPL and AGPL need section 13. how is
that irrelevant?

i should have been more explicit when i said that both AGPL and GPL
needed to work together for compatibility to work. i was only
referring to *their* compatibility as it exists.

> The MIT/Expat license or BSD-3 can be used in an AGPLv3 project.
> There's no need for the AGPL wording to say so.

this is a good argument against the part where I went full literalist
interpreting the copyleft clause. those licenses don't need extra
permission because they've been traditionally understood as subsets of
what the GPL already demands. this is what the Software Freedom Law
Center has to say on the matter:

> A condition in a non-GPL license covering some incorporated code,
> however liberal or simple such a license is, is certain to be
> different from the terms of the GPL in at least a literal
> sense. However, the meaning of “further restrictions” under GPL
> version 2 (GPLv2) has not been read in a literalist fashion, but
> rather has been elaborated over time by the communities[...]
> The kinds of notice preservation requirements commonly found in
> permissive licenses are different from counterpart requirements in
> the GPL, but they are, as a rule, similar in nature and purpose
> and no more burdensome than the GPL requirements.


https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943



_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Isaac David]

Isaac David wrote :
> i should have been more explicit when i said that both AGPL and GPL
> needed to work together for compatibility to work. i was only
> referring to *their* compatibility as it exists.

i back off. i was replying to this sentence of yours:

> because the GPLv3 has an explicit clause that says the code
> can be used in an AGPLv3 project

intention was clear from context.
-- 
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943



_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Lyberta]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 278 bytes --]

Aaron Wolf:
> In short, GPLv2+ and AGPLv3 (with or without the +) *are* compatible,
> but the resulting combo will be AGPL overall.

So if someone downloads such combined work and start a server, do they
have to publish the complete source code? What if they modify it?


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 517 bytes --]

On 08/30/2017 02:15 AM, Lyberta wrote:
> Aaron Wolf:
>> In short, GPLv2+ and AGPLv3 (with or without the +) *are* compatible,
>> but the resulting combo will be AGPL overall.
> 
> So if someone downloads such combined work and start a server, do they
> have to publish the complete source code? What if they modify it?
> 

Yes, the AGPL terms apply to the whole work, *all* the code *as running
on the server* (i.e. including any modifications) must be published to
those who have access to the server.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Mike Gerwitz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:19:13 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> So if someone downloads such combined work and start a server, do they
>> have to publish the complete source code? What if they modify it?
>> 
>
> Yes, the AGPL terms apply to the whole work, *all* the code *as running
> on the server* (i.e. including any modifications) must be published to
> those who have access to the server.

But only if modifications are made.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05
https://mikegerwitz.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

On 08/30/2017 06:54 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:19:13 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> So if someone downloads such combined work and start a server, do they
>>> have to publish the complete source code? What if they modify it?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the AGPL terms apply to the whole work, *all* the code *as running
>> on the server* (i.e. including any modifications) must be published to
>> those who have access to the server.
> 
> But only if modifications are made.
> 

What do you mean "only if modifications are made"?
Can you cite the part of the license you read that way?

I certainly had the impression that, just like the GPL, the AGPL
required making the source available whenever conveying, regardless of
modified status.

It is *not* okay under AGPL to have a situation like this (at least as I
believe at this time and want to be true):

1. I publish code under AGPL
2. You get my code
3. My website that publishes the source disappears
4. You publish the software via giving people access over a server, make
no modifications, and refuse to share the source.

Under the GPL or AGPL, anyone doing the conveying is responsible for
providing the source code. That responsibility doesn't come into play
only if you modify the code.


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Mike Gerwitz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1969 bytes --]

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.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05
https://mikegerwitz.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2140 bytes --]

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??


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[John Sullivan]

Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> writes:

> 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??

Put a source link in the code. Then if anyone removes it in the version
they are offering over the network, it's a modified version. AFAICT,
most AGPL programs have such notices (not sure why you wouldn't).

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: Adding [A]GPLv3+ code to Quake-based code base

[Aaron Wolf]

On 08/31/2017 12:43 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> writes:
> 
>> 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??
> 
> Put a source link in the code. Then if anyone removes it in the version
> they are offering over the network, it's a modified version. AFAICT,
> most AGPL programs have such notices (not sure why you wouldn't).
> 
> -john
> 

Yes, of course. And you mean explicitly *a user-facing source-link in
the UI* (a link in just the source code is no good if you don't have the
source code). But this still means that we can have this bad (though
unlikely) situation:

1. Service A goes up with code under AGPL
2. Service B goes up with unmodified code
3. Source host goes down
4. Service B remains running indefinitely with no source available, and
service B can refuse to provide it

In fact, a single

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss