undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjosefx4y ago0 comments

As far as I understand it was never legally AGPL licensed, it was licensed on a custom license that just happened to merge AGPL and commons clause. The commons clause in this case is not an addition to existing AGPL licensed code.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

mintplant4y ago· 1 in thread

I don't think this argument holds, because Section 7 refers to "this License", which the AGPL text defines specifically as:

> "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License.

Thus I don't think that references to "this License" within the portion of their custom license that is the verbatim AGPL text would automatically expand to also encompass the tacked-on Commons Clause text.

josefxOP4y ago

Okay, if I read the court document correctly Section 7 explicitly refers to Section 10 to limit its scope and section 10 is explicitly about things a licensee (You) isn't allowed to do. So it cannot be applied to terms added by the licensor.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse