• Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    AGPL is more “copyleft”, but not really more “permissive”, in the sense that AGPL adds the extra requirement of forcing server admins to provide the sourcecode to the users of any service that internally makes use of AGPL code.

    It plugs a loophole of the other GPL licenses that allows companies to not share any custom modifications as long as they don’t directly share the binaries (they can offer a service using internally modified binaries, but as long as they don’t distribute the binaries themselves they don’t have to share the source code from those modifications running on their private servers, even if they are GPL).

    However, I don’t think a license change would really solve this particular bug-reporting trouble. Most likely Google has not patched these vulnerabilities internally either, or at least the biggest chunk of them (since most of them are apparently edge cases that would most likely not apply to Google’s services anyway).

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I mean, I understand the licenses, I just have the same reservation you addressed at the end: I don’t see how the licensing scheme would affect bug reporting.