Timeline for AGPL violation using reverse proxy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jun 11, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | JamesTheAwesomeDude | I wonder about the case of: a proprietary imageboard/forum software P, public-facing, which sends user attachments to an AGPL-licensed backend/database server A for storage. Are they "one software"? Is the users' "access" to the backend storage capabilities mangled enough not to qualify as "access"? What if P operates in an explicitly archival- and storage-focused manner (e.g., "booru"-type software)? | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 14:23 | history | edited | Philippe Ombredanne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fix spelling and grammar |
| Sep 16, 2016 at 6:43 | history | edited | Philippe Ombredanne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added extra answer elements |
| Sep 16, 2016 at 6:18 | comment | added | Philippe Ombredanne | let me add some follow answer later today... FWIW the "Preamble" is not part of the T & C but is not something to ignore entirely. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 20:28 | comment | added | MathKid | Thanks for your answer. Just as a follow up. In the Preamble of the AGPL it is said: Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version. Since in this example server A is not publicly accessible, wouldn't allow this the hypothetical company to keep it's changes for itsself? | |
| Sep 14, 2016 at 10:33 | history | answered | Philippe Ombredanne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |