Re: Final text of AGPL v3
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:07:14 am John Halton wrote:
> So to use an example that I'm most familiar with, if you have a
> Wordpress installation running on top of a LAMP stack then neither
> Linux, Apache, MySQL nor PHP is itself capable of providing access
> to its source for remote users. Each would need the application
> sitting on top - Wordpress - to provide that functionality. So I'd
> say that's an indication that they are not "supporting interaction
> with remote users" in the manner envisaged by the AGPL.
Not sure if I agree with your description of the LAMP stack :) As a
user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two
things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and
links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the
server which then goes and talks to the PHP/Perl/Python code to
generate a bunch of HTML and is then sent back to the user via HTTP.
I'm not even certain I think the HTML pages generated by
PHP/Perl/Python are part of the copyrighted application, since they
are often templates designed by the end user OR text for a blog. And
if we are saying that those are added to the AGPLed application...
well, then we have a whole new problem.
> Wordpress itself, however, *is* capable of providing such access,
> so if Wordpress were licensed under AGPL then modifications to the
> Wordpress code would need to be made available under clause 13.
From my perspective, it's apache which is capable of providing such
access...
http://my.site.com/source.tgz
That's all apache there. Wordpress might be nice enough to remind the
user how to grab it, but it doesn't require Wordpress to do so...
could just be a static HTML page... could be via an email, google,
word of mouth, or random characters in the location bar.
Ultimately I am still left without a meaningful definition of
interaction.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@gmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Reply to: