@Shamar @kaniini yes, this is exactly what AGPL says.

But in a way that would hold up in court.

It's kinda as if a lawyer said "I need software that does exactly what GIMP does. Only the code has to be shorter. Something like 'user draws -> software saves'".

If you want to write a software license like this though, go ahead. I will keep using AGPL for my stuff, since it's written and vetted by people who know how the legal system works. Which is relevant, I feel.

@Shamar @kaniini if the copyright system made it possible to ban clean room reimplementations, you would not have a lot of the GNU utils, which are cleanroom reimplementations of closed-source tools from different UNIXes.

Patent laws are being used for this exact purpose these days. That's why they're considered evil by the FLOSS community.

Be careful what you wish for.

@Shamar @kaniini so, one would *HAVE TO* modify the program to be able to use it? Am I getting this right?

@Shamar @kaniini you're describing any copyleft free software license.

@rysiek @Shamar @kaniini

The whole Oracle vs. Google thing is going that way, because it's both free software, and Oracle is suing Google over API cloning, i.e. over reimplementation of library stuff.

And the supreme court already said that APIs are under copyright, and the next awful decision is that it isn't fair use, either.

I hope the third decision of the lower court will be that the damage is $0, because it was free software, anyways… but we already are in deep shit.

@Shamar @kaniini

> Second you can compile the software into another language with a private compiler and relicense the new code in another way.

I do not think this is true. It would still be a work based on your copyrighted code, automatic translation from one language to another doesn't make copyright magically go away.

@Shamar @kaniini but then you're advocating licensing*ideas*, not software.

And that is inherently dangerous. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents#Criticism

@Shamar @kaniini and API stuff is handled by "13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

@Shamar @kaniini if you have not modified the program, you still have to inform your users you are using it. And since the original program is AGPLed, getting the code is not hard.

It's in "0. Definitions.", last paragraph.

@Shamar @kaniini well that's what Oracle vs. Google lawsuit was about, wasn't it.

@Shamar @rysiek @kaniini there's still something in fair use about "for compatibility", don't exactly remember what though.

@Shamar @rysiek @kaniini
* "for interoperability"

@kaniini @Shamar yeah, no.

Read carefully.

"The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work".

You have two programs, A and G. A is licensed under AGPL, G is licensed under GPL3.

Now, you create a new piece of software, or a package, out of these two. Let's call it Z.

A keeps being covered by AGPL, and so is anything that is copied from A into Z.

G is still covered by GPL3, and so is anything copied from G to Z.

@kaniini @Shamar now, depending on what Z is and how tightly stuff intermingles, you might or might not be able to keep the licensing for A-in-Z and G-in-Z separate or not.

If it's a package, you *could* keep them separate.

If it's a single piece of code, in practice the whole thing is AGPL.

Bot there is no way to suddenly relicense AGPL code into GPL3.

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I used to do trainings on copyright and libre licensing of software and art.

@kaniini @Shamar and because "you cannot use this software in combination with any software that is not available on the same license" would mean nobody can use your software.

There are no browsers on the AGPL that I know of. There is no single fully AGPL operating system.

@kaniini @Shamar not to mention that "you cannot use this software with any software that is not on the same license" would violate Freedom 0.

So it would not have been a Free Software license.

@kaniini @Shamar thing is, software licensing is a damn complicated topic.

"Simple solutions" usually lead to terrible unintended consequences.

It might make sense to do some research, read up on this topic, learn about how licensing works and what are the challenges license writers face.

@Shamar @kaniini if these are two separate pieces of software, yes, that's how it can work.

Again, you are welcome to write a better license.

I would strongly advise against that, due to unintended consequences you are inevitably going to run int.

@rysiek @Shamar @kaniini
How about making copyleft a law on its own, instead of trying to hack the copyright into providing copyleft?

@Wolf480pl @Shamar @kaniini because what we really need is yet another, new, not tested in court, not well understood imaginary property regime complicating things in the software licensing landscape.

Sure.

@rysiek @Shamar @kaniini damn it, you ruined my bait...

@rysiek @Shamar @kaniini (it was supposed to be a bait for Shamar)

@Wolf480pl @Shamar @kaniini

@rysiek @Shamar @kaniini complicating? We could come up with something really simple, like "it's illegal to ever distribute software without source code", or "all software in our country must be GPL licensed". What could _possibly_ go wrong?

@Shamar @rysiek @kaniini So if you teach me modular exponentiation, then I should share with everyone everything I encrypt using RSA?

@Shamar @kaniini you are forced to make the covered work available as AGPL.

If it is a single piece of software, the whole thing is basically under AGPL.

@Shamar @kaniini it isn't. I don't think I can explain it any better. Read up on licensing of derivative works.