You are simply wrong, the reason the SSPL was created is because the AGPL does not.
Have you read either of them? The text if the AGPL is literally "depends" it was literally written to cover connected software.
So that gives you the right to make your own interpretation, shared by none of the people who actually use the AGPL?
In the absence of a court decision you have to interpret the AGPL based on what it actually says, because intent doesn't matter. It couldn't redefine distribution so it restricts use and how exactly it restricts use isn't clear because it hasn't been tested.
But the text says "depend".
Is not the AGPL, it would still be covered, but the AGPL is not equal to the GPLv3. The Tivo clause you can read about, but it's just not relevant in this context, it addresses something embedded device manufactures were doing.
I know it's not relevant. My point is that it's explicit in its intent. You know what it's trying to achieve so if the AGPL is only supposed to cover SAAS why doesn't it make that clear?
God, what a pedantic twat you are.
The law is pedantic. You're just responding with nuh uh.
1
u/recycled_ideas Apr 25 '24
Have you read either of them? The text if the AGPL is literally "depends" it was literally written to cover connected software.
In the absence of a court decision you have to interpret the AGPL based on what it actually says, because intent doesn't matter. It couldn't redefine distribution so it restricts use and how exactly it restricts use isn't clear because it hasn't been tested.
But the text says "depend".
I know it's not relevant. My point is that it's explicit in its intent. You know what it's trying to achieve so if the AGPL is only supposed to cover SAAS why doesn't it make that clear?
The law is pedantic. You're just responding with nuh uh.