Shane Martin Coughlan coughlan@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Hi Alexander
Alexander Plank wrote:
A developer is violating the terms of the AGPLv1 by sub-licensing
his
software under the AGPL. His site is http://www.cmsimple.dk/ and he distributes his software under the AGPL but adds a condition
that
users must include an advert link to his website in a separate
license ...
What can be done about this?
I have forwarded your concerns to FSF's licensing lab for consideration and comment.
However, note that the if developer holds the copyright of the code himself, he's perfectly entitled to do so. However, his work is then not really under the AGPL as he claims, but under a new license consisting of the AGPL + one additional restriction. This is confusing and undesirable and I personally don't like the concept of "badgeware" inherent in some "Open Source" licenses, but if he owns the copyright to the code, he's not violating the AGPL by defining such terms.
br Carsten
Carsten Agger wrote:
However, note that the if developer holds the copyright of the code himself, he's perfectly entitled to do so. However, his work is then not really under the AGPL as he claims, but under a new license consisting of the AGPL + one additional restriction. This is confusing and undesirable and I personally don't like the concept of "badgeware" inherent in some "Open Source" licenses, but if he owns the copyright to the code, he's not violating the AGPL by defining such terms.
Yes, if the developer is the sole author then he or she can determine their own terms of distribution. However, the text from Alexander's report suggested that the developer in question is interpreting the AGPL as validating what might be termed badgeware. That is an issue that may need addressing.
Regards
Shane