[Qwuke]

Wrt to the legal concerns with AGPL, they're not actually that it wouldn't provide any protection, but rather that it might offer the originally distributing entity too much power: legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available. Basically, a ""contagious"" or copyleft license as GPLv3 intended, but even more viral than intended in the AGPL variant since it extends well beyond the source software. I have not seen any lawyer concerned with how Amazon would be able to bypass its protections, *because they're otherwise the same as GPLv3 and have already been tested.*

I think this poster created the legal theory themselves because they were aware of other legal concerns with the AGPL affecting the above scenario. I've read a lot of legalblogging about AGPL, and none bring up this as even a remote possibility, because unless you think GPLv3 case law is somehow irrelevant then you don't think AGPL will be simply bypassed.

One last thing: I'm surprised the poster was concerned about AGPL being untested, despite it using GPLv3, and not that FSL has only existed for 2 years and has 0 case law surrounding.

[jraph]

> legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available

If I understand correctly what you say, this is one of the main concerns with the SSPL because of the following [1]:

> The SSPL is based on the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a "service" must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all "management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available", under the SSPL.

I'm not familiar with this concern for the AGPL itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License

[Qwuke]

Yes, that's the MongoDB variant which codifies it directly, and SF Conservancy and other legal entities promotion FOSS licenses states that the network stack contagion concern does not actually apply for the AGPL. But because AGPL doesn’t dig into the definition of "access", simply defining it as “users interacting with it remotely through a computer network”, nor define clear boundaries for how the "contagious" part of GPLv3 interacts with the rest of the network stack of this clause, it has meant that some lawyers think that a court may overly broadly interpret the definition.

So far this contagion concern hasn't actually played out, and big corporations/hyperscalers are often using AGPL software somewhere in their stack if they're using common Linux distros - and nothing thus far has been compelled to be open sourced that isn't AGPL software.

This might be insightful about the concerns as well as why lawyers still think it's straightforward: https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/agpl-license-is-a-non-...

https://discuss.logseq.com/t/on-the-agpl-license-and-the-ide...

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL

(not a lawyer): https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

[imtringued]

AGPL isn't viral or contagious, it's copyleft. You need permission from the author to copy. If you violate the license terms you're copying something you're not allowed to copy. That's a copyright violation like illegally downloading music and the rights holder is allowed to tell you to stop doing it.

[Qwuke]

>AGPL isn't viral or contagious, it's copyleft

Oh I agree! And I think it's straightforward to comply with.

I was just explaining the common legal concerns that pop up with the license, and that too much 'contagion' has historically been a gripe about its lack of case law.

[goodpoint]

> contagious license

Can I catch GPL inadvertently and against my will? No, it is not "contagious".

[Qwuke]

Sorry, I'll put that in air quotes, I don't believe free software is disease causing :) just speaking about the common concern is whether or not AGPL copyleft applies to everything involved in responding to a network request (it does not).

[sarchertech]

FSL is a much simpler court case. “You weren’t allowed to compete with us. You did. Here are the actual damages incurred. Pay us.”

An AGPL enforcement would require the court to interpret its virality which is an open question before even deciding whether a violation occurred.

The potentially overreaching nature of AGPL is one reason it maybe unenforceable. On the other hand if courts lean towards the less viral interpretation Google could get around these issues by modding an AGPL project to run on their proprietary hardware that no one has access to and then simply releasing the modified source code.

[Qwuke]

>An AGPL enforcement would require the court to interpret its virality which is an open question before even deciding whether a violation occurred.

In US courts, the case law shows that the "virality" is not really an open question because of GPLv3 case law, and has never been interpreted that way. I'm not sure why you're commenting about this scenario when you're unaware that this has been actually tried in courts.

In fact, we saw that in infamous Neo4j AGPL case, actually. AGPL worked as intended and protected the AGPL software in a similar way to LGPL. The court went on to protect non-GPL compliant additions that Neo4j made as being considered contagious, even, going even further to protect the original licensee than intended with the original unmodified license.

So, just recapping, you've gone from stating that Amazon could firewall off AGPL because it has no case law, and after learning it does has its case law includes GPLv3 that it simply may not be 'viral' enough because that hasn't been tested in court, to now learning it has been tested in court and successfully enforced.

[jraph]

> Google could get around these issues by modding an AGPL project to run on their proprietary hardware that no one has access to and then simply releasing the modified source code.

Well I guess they could today, I don't see the AGPL preventing them to. As long as the modified source is available under the AGPL I suppose they'd be good to go.

A license that forces someone to release software for specific hardware would be non-free I suppose.

I don't see this being practical though. Running proprietary hardware just for this reason would likely be costly, and not really efficient: someone could restore support for general hardware from upstream / only keep the interesting changes.