> In particular, I think it is missing that GPLv3 addresses "User<br>> Products" -- see <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization</a><br>
> -- rendering the specific 4.0 suggestion (AGPL only rather than GPL<br>> compatibility) moot.<br><br>> However, desire for some non-software creators to license their works<br>> under terms disallowing "tivoization" could be added as a rationale to<br>
> <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/GPL_compatibility_use_cases">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/GPL_compatibility_use_cases</a> ...<br>> discuss.<br><br>My understanding is that an "User Product" (in section 8) would be a "gaming console" in this situation IF there would be any [A]GPLv3 code in it BUT in this kind of a device it is not the case. It is simply an audio-video player (audio and video streaming) with a gaming controller attached to it to send commands. In this situation both client software/content and server software/content are "executed" in a remote "server" centre. So my question here is not about "tivoization" (although it would be nice to be able prevent it in CC-BY-SA 4.0 IMO) but about a section of AGPLv3 which says about remote interactions.<br>
<br>[A]GPLv3 (section 0):<br>"To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying."<br>
<br>If I understand it correctly it means that playing a multiplayer game in a situation as above would be a "mere interaction" because game (content and code) would not be copied to the user machine, only an output of a software execution would be received. So [A]GPL does not "help" here.<br>
<br>AGPLv3 (section 13):<br>"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version ..."<br>
<br>In my understanding this part of section 13 overrides anything before itself in a licence text. If a game is a multiplayer game then it is designed to be used remotely (a client is communicating with a server). If there would be a client machine with client code and a server machine with server code then it this section of AGPLv3 should work nicely (unlike GPLv3) (but there could be some loopholes anyway).<br>
<br>In a situation mentioned at the beginning this is not exactly the case. Both client and server code is running on in a remote "server" centre BUT players are still interacting with a software which is designed to have network/remote interactions (a multiplayer game) so it would seam to me that even here an AGPLv3 licence would offer benefits over GPLv3 licence.<br>
<br>This is why I would prefer CC-BY-SA 4.0 to have "export" to AGPLv3 rather than GPLv3 and also to have similar provisions (similar to part 1 of section 13 of AGPLv3) so that "export" to AGPLv3 would make more sense (so that licences would be more similar).<br>
<br>On the other hand though, I'm not sure if section 13 of AGPLv3 would make any difference for content (content by itself is not interacting with users directly) so it might be that I'm writing all of this just to learn more about [A]GPLv3.<br>
<br>Of course please correct me if I have gotten it all wrong.<br><br>