Back

@christianbundy That said, I don't have a good idea about how to preserve the freedom of users running software on a remote server.

Running your own servers and open protocols for content seems to be as close as we can get, which seems to be avoiding the problem, in a way...

@blakehaswell Isn't that the point of the AGPL?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

I'm much more interested in local computing (#scuttlebutt > #mastodon IMO), but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world -- and that means *most people* are doing their computing remotely.

We've got a lot of work to do.

@christianbundy @blakehaswell That is it's intention, and it does go most of the way.

But as long as you're relying on others to run the software for you, you can't verify what version of that software they're running yourself, and you'd have to convince them to run any modifications you might make.

So yes, there's legal tools to deal with this case, but it's still better to run the software yourself.

@alcinnz

@christianbundy @blakehaswell
we have bee trying to find out why google hates AGPL... any hints? or easy explanation? #fuckoffgoogle

@ajeremias @christianbundy @blakehaswell

Well, with the GPL if you deliver an executable file to someone they have the demand the source code for it. So Microsoft used to hate that it might limit their ability to withhold that source code in the executable files they sell.

The AGPL extends that right to anyone using an Internet service powered by that software. Google hates it because it might limit their ability to withhold the source code for their web services they litter with ads.