AGPL fixes a "bug" in GPL that many tech companies have exploited to not release modified source code as the GPL requires. Simply put, GPL says that you have to release the complete source code (including any changes you have made) of a GPL licensed code only if you distribute it to other users. Many tech companies thus avoided GPL code. But with the growth of Software-as-a-Service, where an application only runs on the server and is accessed through a browser or an app, many of these same companies created web applications with GPL code that they customised. However, if a user demanded the source code of the GPL code, along with the modifications they made, the tech companies refused to provide it claiming they weren't "distributing" the application (as in giving you the whole application to run on your computer). And since they weren't doing that they claimed they had no legal obligation to release the complete source code.
AGPL fixes this - it recognizes SaaS web applications too as a "distribution" of GPL software. So if a source code is licensed under AGPL, anyone who uses it to create web applications and makes it available to the public is now also legally obliged to provide the complete source code if any user requests for it. (And ofcourse, as with GPL the user is free to use the source code as they want, freedom to improve it, and even start competing SaaS services).
That is why the AGPL is currently the best GNU license to ensure that your open source code always remains open source.
All AGPL / GPL licensed code requires that the AGPL / GPL license also be distributed with the application. Moreover, AGPL / GPL also requires public attribution (acknowledgement / credit) of those who have created and contributed to the source code.
Ofcourse, if somebody wants to be dishonest and unethical, they can violate these terms to hide the fact that they are using AGPL code in their SaaS application. There's not much you can do about it in such cases. But if anyone (like current or former employee) leaks this info to the public, they can face legal trouble and bad PR in the future as it would be akin to using pirated software.
AGPL wouldn't stop copyright lawyers from using it or even making changes and not sharing. It would only stop another company from making changes and not sharing them and selling the service to lawyers.
Of course copyright lawyers have to prove in court their means how they hunted some violation.
They would therefore have to disclose any modifications they made to an AGPL software, therefore giving insights how they hunt, therefore allow for better countermeasures.
Don't be naive about lawyers, they are aware what AGPL means.
Comments
Very good suggestion, considering the sniffer could be used by copyright claims lawyers.
Can't see how AGPL would stop anyone using it. Doesn't it just prevent them from modifying the source code without sharing their changes. ?
AGPL fixes a "bug" in GPL that many tech companies have exploited to not release modified source code as the GPL requires. Simply put, GPL says that you have to release the complete source code (including any changes you have made) of a GPL licensed code only if you distribute it to other users. Many tech companies thus avoided GPL code. But with the growth of Software-as-a-Service, where an application only runs on the server and is accessed through a browser or an app, many of these same companies created web applications with GPL code that they customised. However, if a user demanded the source code of the GPL code, along with the modifications they made, the tech companies refused to provide it claiming they weren't "distributing" the application (as in giving you the whole application to run on your computer). And since they weren't doing that they claimed they had no legal obligation to release the complete source code.
AGPL fixes this - it recognizes SaaS web applications too as a "distribution" of GPL software. So if a source code is licensed under AGPL, anyone who uses it to create web applications and makes it available to the public is now also legally obliged to provide the complete source code if any user requests for it. (And ofcourse, as with GPL the user is free to use the source code as they want, freedom to improve it, and even start competing SaaS services).
That is why the AGPL is currently the best GNU license to ensure that your open source code always remains open source.
How would someone know if SaaS uses some AGPL code?
All AGPL / GPL licensed code requires that the AGPL / GPL license also be distributed with the application. Moreover, AGPL / GPL also requires public attribution (acknowledgement / credit) of those who have created and contributed to the source code.
Ofcourse, if somebody wants to be dishonest and unethical, they can violate these terms to hide the fact that they are using AGPL code in their SaaS application. There's not much you can do about it in such cases. But if anyone (like current or former employee) leaks this info to the public, they can face legal trouble and bad PR in the future as it would be akin to using pirated software.
In general, you don't, but that's a different question.
It only prevents them from modifying the code and not sharing their changes and making the service available to another company.
You are still free to make private changes to AGPL code and run it for yourself (or your company).
I'm not considering "anyone" here, I'm considering copyright/license lawyers.
Would be kinda dumb for them to violate a license agreement (AGPL) while hunting for license violations.
AGPL wouldn't stop copyright lawyers from using it or even making changes and not sharing. It would only stop another company from making changes and not sharing them and selling the service to lawyers.
Of course copyright lawyers have to prove in court their means how they hunted some violation.
They would therefore have to disclose any modifications they made to an AGPL software, therefore giving insights how they hunt, therefore allow for better countermeasures.
Don't be naive about lawyers, they are aware what AGPL means.
That's just not what the license says.