/test/ - Test Board

Josh is so freaking fat. That fatso Josh is the fattest. He redefines the meaning of "fat". Why can't Josh look past all his fat and see that he's fat? It must be because he's simply too fat. You couldn't pay me to be as fat as Josh Moon. There is fat and then there's Josh. He and his fat are inseparable. Fat Josh is what people should call him. Standing next to Josh Moon, Fat Albert would look anorexic. What does he drive? A fatmobile? As if his fat would fit in a car. He is absolutely obese. You could take shelter under Josh's fat. He's so fat I can almost see him in the distance as I type this. Joshua "Fatty Fatso McFatterson" Moon was unable to stop being so fat that he couldn't complete Infinity-Next. More like "Infatiny-Next" or "Infinity-Fat". Josh's abdominal was so stretched that his stomach ulcer practically burst open and he was unable to stop being so fat. TL;DR Josh is fat.

test test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_provider (who owns the servers again?????????????)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

Both versions of the AGPL were designed to close a perceived application service provider (ASP) loophole in the ordinary GPL, where, by using but not distributing the software, the copyleft provisions are not triggered. Each version differs from the version of the GNU GPL on which it is based in having an added provision addressing use of software over a computer network. This provision requires that the full source code be made available to any network user of the AGPL-licensed work ^^^ , typically a web application.

The Free Software Foundation has recommended that the GNU AGPLv3 be considered for any software that will commonly be run over a network.[2] The Open Source Initiative approved the GNU AGPLv3[3] as an open source license in March 2008 after the company Funambol submitted it for consideration.[6]

[2]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#AGPL:

> This is a free software, copyleft license. Its terms effectively consist of the terms of GPLv3, with an additional paragraph in section 13 to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program. We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network.

> Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it (OP:no bakcdoor, perhaps) however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under both of those licenses in a single project(OP:it is compatible if adding GNU GPL code to NEXT but adding AGPL (infinity NEXT) to a GNU GPL (infinity vanilla) is not compatible... GNU GPL would make it possible for a backdoor hence AGPL was born to solve this refer to ^^^ ), which will provide many programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details.

>2016

>using GPLvX for anything web

>not using AGPLvX

>b-but anon it is not yet tested because..

TL;DR

AGPL will save anons

AGPLvX is more transparent than the old GNU GPLvX when it comes to WEB and it is highly recommended by the FSF and GNU

>inb4 josh is with the feds bull

CHECKMATE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_provider (who owns the servers again?????????????)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

Both versions of the AGPL were designed to close a perceived application service provider (ASP) loophole in the ordinary GPL ^^^ , where, by using but not distributing the software, the copyleft provisions are not triggered. Each version differs from the version of the GNU GPL on which it is based in having an added provision addressing use of software over a computer network. This provision requires that the full source code be made available to any network user of the AGPL-licensed work , typically a web application.

The Free Software Foundation has recommended that the GNU AGPLv3 be considered for any software that will commonly be run over a network.[2] The Open Source Initiative approved the GNU AGPLv3[3] as an open source license in March 2008 after the company Funambol submitted it for consideration.[6]

[2]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#AGPL:

> This is a free software, copyleft license. Its terms effectively consist of the terms of GPLv3, with an additional paragraph in section 13 to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program. We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network.

> Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it (OP:yes bakcdoor, perhaps if infinity next is converted to GNU GPL-with-ASP-loophole) however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under both of those licenses in a single project(OP:it is compatible if adding GNU GPL code to NEXT but adding AGPL (infinity NEXT) to a GNU GPL (infinity vanilla) is not compatible... GNU GPL would make it possible for a backdoor hence AGPL was born to solve this refer to ^^^ ), which will provide many programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details.

>2016

>using GPLvX for anything web

>not using AGPLvX

>b-but anon it is not yet tested because..

TL;DR

AGPL will save anons

AGPLvX is more transparent than the old GNU GPLvX when it comes to WEB and it is highly recommended by the FSF and GNU

>inb4 josh is with the feds bull

CHECKMATE