Follow @aral @tagomago you're right, of course.

That said, I don't see it as fear-mongering, I see this as risk-avoidance. If an employee/contractor has AGPLed code on their workstation it might accidentally be used in a project that then goes live and (from Google's perspective) "taints" a lot of code.

That would expose Google to lawsuits from users demanding they release all of the "tainted" code, which is a huge risk if you're a Big Tech surveillance capitalist.

So, they play it very, very safe.

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 1
I perceive some misplaced fears in this description
it's not like AGPLed code automatically makes itself interactive with remote users. if you use it, it's likely that it has features to interact with remote users (and point users at sources through that interface), and if you modify the program, you must make it point to corresponding sources as well, but imagining an accidental situation seems misleading at best

furthermore, lawsuits from users would likely be quickly dismissed. users don't generally have standing to sue for copyright infringement, which is what a failure to comply with the license terms amounts to. only copyright holders can enforce their copyrights over the work.

anyway, IANAL
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!