‘Open source’, a phrase deliberately engineered with several different meanings, is very effective at scamming us out of libre software.
A service cannot have a software license. It is a service, not software. We are not bound by a software license when someone else runs their software on their device.
Could the AGPL license help with this? I’m no expert (not even an amateur) but that seems to be why it was constructed:
If you let users access any AGPL licensed software over a network, then that is also a form of distribution. This is what the GPL had missed out. With the boom of the cloud era, SaaS has exploded, and instead of distributing software directly, developers and vendors started digitally delivery of software.
‘Open source’, a phrase deliberately engineered with several different meanings, is very effective at scamming us out of libre software.
A service cannot have a software license. It is a service, not software. We are not bound by a software license when someone else runs their software on their device.
There is a nice writeup on this by the GNU people:
If you leave the cornered brackets empty, some clients (like mine) won’t show the link at all:
Your link doesn’t display. My client treats it as an image URL.
Here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html
Did you really use the “insert link” option to put a link in your comment?
Just paste the link directly into the text body.
Could the AGPL license help with this? I’m no expert (not even an amateur) but that seems to be why it was constructed:
https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275
Yes, correct, and the title does not say AGPL or libre software. ‘Open source service’ is a nonsense.