No, Alice owns nothing in your scenario, and has no standing to sue.
True, but the Alice/Bob/Claire situation doesn't match the summary:
"I am a recent graduate, and I've been working on my own on a project that uses GPL-licensed libraries. Later a university department hired me, (...)
Unless the hiring agreement contained an explicit copyright assignment, anything he contributed before he got hired will give him standing to sue if they violate the GPL.
Of all those, I suspect Wikipedia is correct. If you plug the formula from wikipedia in wolfram alpha you get this. If you look at the AU page, that distance has been disputed. Also the approximation that the tan() can be ignored is wrong around the 8th significant digit.
Of course, pretty much everything would contradict some sect's religious beliefs, what he actually means is he wants a Christian theocracy, Many of the colonists were Christians escaping persecution from other Christians, there's good reason why they put freedom of religion - implicitly meaning the freedom of different religious practices - in the Bill of Rights. Why take advice on who should uphold the constitution from someone who wants to retcon it? They've already suckered people into thinking "under God" was in the pledge of allegiance...
From what I gather the UK system was rather screwed up and in 1832 they had a huge reform, making it more like the US system with first past the post. Not sure how much the Brits cared about what the Americans did at the time, but it seems they already brought the US system back. Not the best choice, then again there weren't that many great choices in Europe at the time...
A more realistic scenario is that my tiny telecommunications company owns a patent on compressing audio that gets included in a larger standard. The company may not have any representatives involved in the standard - in fact, they might not even know that there is an infringing proposal. I think the latter scenario is a lot more common and of course, the standards organization is still (rightfully) on the hook for liability.
Two words: Tough shit. If you want to have a patent, you have to review the standards proposed and see if any patents you have apply. Anything else will just lead to willful blindness where they don't want to be part of the standards organization and instead patent troll the process. There are not that many standards being passed that might be relevant to each patents, it's more than reasonable to demand that. Just like how you can lose your trademark if you don't defend it or there are tons of public notices in the paper who nobody will check if you read or not. If you don't, your problem and your loss. Though personally I think software patents should be abolished world wide altogether.
I don't think it'll in any way be practical to expropriate that IP, which is essentially what you are talking about. However, that is not the biggest problem with patents. The biggest problem with patents is that a standard is never proven patent free, only that no claim of infringement has been made against it yet. This is why I would like standards bodies to have the ability to call for patents, and any patent claim not made within a reasonable time frame is forfeit as related to that standard. A relevant current example is Theora - they claim it's patent free but is it really? What if someone like ISO or ITU-T could publish the standard, demand that any patent claims must be done within three months and if none were made you knew with 100% certainty that any later claims are null and void? It would be wonderful. I don't see this as a way of freeing IP, but it would go a long way of reducing patent FUD and submarine patents. Even if it should turn out to be patented you know which bits and could work to remove those and try again.
The only other thing is to look out for sociopaths. Don't assume everybody you work with has a perfect personality. In practice a great many do not. I can't help you deal with these people. Sometimes they are hard to spot. A good skill it to learn not to reply to trolls. Don't let people wind you up. Getting somebody angry is a great way to beat them at something. If you are good at something you will likely get picked out for treatment early on if this kind of person is around.
Well, having had to deal with one and being the only one of six who managed to have reasonably civil contact, my trick was simply to wear the elephant hide. She tried pretty much all sorts of personal attacks, and constantly vague references to 200-page documents or that she said so in a meeting long ago, no amount of preparation was good enough, she played divide and conquer doing he said she said games, all sorts of things. Some tried getting angry, and she just completely failed to acknowledge any reason to be angry, that just made them 200% more unprofessional in her mind. Everything was always a disaster unless it involved talking to management about something she was responsible for, unless she had some inkling to blame others. She always covered her own back because she had always warned of impending doom so even if struck true it was all "I told you so", even though I suspect more often than not it was caused by her own destructive influence. The only thing I found to work was utter indifference, the moment she realized I didn't give a damn she stopped trying.
Take a stereotypical nerd for example. Poor hygiene, poor social skills, completely out of touch with reality. If this describes you, consider not being yourself. Although typically people that are described like this probably aren't self-aware of such things.
I think some at least are self-aware, they've just decided it's not required to be functional and anything else doesn't really matter. A lot of the "reality" people care about are things you can do awfully fine without like celebrities, sports, reality shows, politics, fashion and whatnot. Social skills often involve the ability to feign interest in someone else's life even when you really don't care. If you just don't care to make the pretenses, if you don't make the slightest effort to have any common themes to talk about or tell them anything about yourself it'll be an awfully short conversation.
I actually think you have the completely opposites, that spend forever with their looks, do never get anything done because they're busy socializing and is into all the happenings and trends and life of those around them. If I was like that I'd feel sort of like an empty shell, where's the real me and why am I busy trying to live the lives of everyone else? Particularly those that get lost in the reality shows on TV, oh sure it's a time filler but like... why? Everything should be a balance, there's rewards in socializing and there's rewards in just being yourself doing what you want.
Now we see why they say, "Go not to Slashdot for counsel, for they will say both yes and no."
What did you expect? To go to a nutritional expert and be told it should be ALL fats or ALL carbs or ALL vitamins or ALL proteins? Going over the top or completely failing is bad in almost anything.
So in your opinion the question "Is a computer faster than an abacus?" has no answer then? Seriously, get a grip - it's just to tell that it can do some things much faster and that is why you should care. That's the first thing you should get across in any communication, there's tons of things that are technically correct but uninteresting or useless. If you can't get that across within the first 30 seconds, I got better things to do. Or since I'm sitting here I probably don't, but anyway...
But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this.
I haven't yet run into an American who really likes any of them, actually. But if you start making change it'll get much, much worse before it'll get better. A good example is the UK, which has the same lame system and recently held an election - you can find the results here but I'll quote the most important bits:
Conservative - 306 seats - 10,706,647 votes - 47.1% of the seats - 36.1% of the votes Labour - 258 seats - 8,604,358 votes - 39.7% of the seats - 29.0% of the votes Liberal Democrat - 57 seats - 6,827,938 votes - 8.8% of the seats - 23.0& of the votes
Now the liberals are a huge third party with 23% of the votes - numbers a US third party can only dream of. What do they get for that? Next to nothing. 9% of the seats while a party only 6% larger gets 40%. Everything is rigged against a third party rising, you can see that even if labour and the liberals joined forced they would barely be larger than the conservaties despite having 52% of the votes between them. The conservatives could form an alliancewith some of the smaller parties and rule with less than 40% popular support. Democracy in action.
The fact that your source material is provided as three quantities (YCbCr, not RGB) doesn't mean four phoshors won't help.
Well there's two possibilities here:
1) You have non-RGB information like for example in xvYCC, which still uses only three quantities but has a much wider gamut. Then four phosphors could definitely help you reproduce more colors. I guess it also proves the problem isn't that you have three quantities, but the way RGB works which doesn't match the eye.
2) You have RGB or clipped-for-RGB YCbCr encoding, then you don't have more than RGB no matter what. In this case, it only makes sense to improve the gamut inside the RGB triangle because LCDs are imperfect things.
Unfortunately BluRays don't support anything outside clipped-for-RGB YCbCr even though some players can play back AVCHD recorded with a xvYCC-capable camera over HDMI 1.3+ to xvYCC-capable TVs. You're talking about a very narrow segment here though.
This is an old case of the chicken and the egg, if you don't have anything but RGB phosphors then only RGB signals make sense. Sony has been one of those pushing for wide gamut signals, wide gamut players (including the PS3) and wide gamut TVs. And also for increased color depth, which will give you more accurate colors but not more colors. Too bad they didn't come up with this before the BluRay spec was made, but then really how many people have noticed the missing colors (which were also missing on DVDs)?
Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins. You can substitute the last two with "lesser evil" and "greater evil" if you want but it still holds true. The US will have either the Democrats or Republicans in office until a armed revolt introduces proportional representation. I assume I don't need to tell you why the incumbents won't help...
As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. (...) Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be.
Principally, it is not necessary that we have to have "sales" of anything. I could lease everything right down to the shirt on my back, it'd all be under the EULA (End User Lease Agreement) which gives me a perpetual, irrevocable lease under this and those conditions. Why then do we want sales? Because sales are simple and practical terms, you give me the product, I give you the money and we each walk our separate ways. For the most part, I can do whatever the hell I want with it and it's none of your business.
Licensing is the way to get around all those pesky rights you are given by a sale. There's is no doubt about this, making something a license instead of a sale is exclusively to the advantage of the licensor and to the disadvantage of the licensee. Software should not be licensed, I should be able to buy a copy equally well if it's a Toyota Prius, a Harry Potter book or Microsoft Office 2010 without any additional strings attached. No reading of a 50-page EULA to see if I can wear this shirt of a demonstration or whether it'll need reactivation if I change my pants.
On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish. SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. (...) would that solve the problem?
It'd certainly stop the "problem" of anything ever being yours, even in the license-crippled state. Except I don't see that as a problem. People don't see that as a problem. In fact, they very much like to own things. In fact, it's whenever they realize they didn't really get to buy it despite handing over the cash that they get pissed at DRM and licensing and activations and live internet connection required. Many people on slashdot support the "service and support" business model of open source, which is way different than SaaS. Software leasing has mostly been a flop, as companies realize the only point is to extort a continuous money stream whether you want to upgrade or not.
iTunes did not die when they dropped DRM, the better question is if there's a problem here that needs solving or are there just some executives looking at some highly imaginary number of sales they didn't get? Is there any real evidence of a mass death of games/TV series/movies/bands? I think the only thing pushing for even more SaaS will do is more people pushing back. More people that think pirating is the closest thing they'll come to owning anything, it's after all the only thing that'll run on their computers alone without linking with the mothership.
So we're getting into cloak-and-dagger territory but wouldn't this be a simple way to have a malicious image installed on the client that'll relay logins back to you? If you're first redesigning it I'd make it so you can both verify cryptographic signatures and use SSL. It would be great if you can plug in your diskless machine into a presumed hostile network and know that it'll only connect to your designated boot server no matter what.
First a tip - a line of blank space here and there in that wall of text would do wonders. Talk shows are really cheap and easy to do,that's why they manage 250/year instead of 26/year. I have no basis to compare production crew sizes but I imagine that would go for far less than 2$/episode.
Seriously, you can make a license as "committed" as you want - that is the easy part. The problem is getting enough value to use that license, for example the GPL has long passed critical mass but very many other licenses have not. It might be a "good" license and yet ultimately irrelevant.
For mass distribution of 50GB worth of mass-stamped content, BluRay is pretty good and gotten a lot cheaper than when the PS3 was first introduced. I think the "big name" games will still be on discs, the question is if we'll see anything more like a real app store for consoles. Yes, yes I know there's sorta something like that today but as a mainstream way of downloading games. Perhaps even as an alternative to discs.
First of all, do you watch three seasons of 26 episodes of each show each year? If not, you just tripled the costs to make it look bad. Already you are down to 600-2080$/year. For singles or couples it'll be a lot better than that. And depending on the terms, if you can keep it you won't need to buy any DVDs either. I'd gladly pay 2$/episode but the following requirements are not negotiable: 1. DRM-free 2. Ad free 3. 1080p quality.
I don't know if you've thought about it (clearly you haven't) but Nintendo is screwed now. What trick will they pull out of their hat now? Sony and Microsoft have the (gimmicky, as it was in the Wii) motion control. They have the developers. They have the hardware. Where do you think that leaves Nintendo in 5 years?
With a ton of money and the same creative guys to do something that Sony and Microsoft won't? Nintendo has long since proven they're far more than a one trick pony.
Yes, and despite the FUD-ness there's a ring of truth to it. Many times with the GPL the issue is that the source code they provide doesn't match the binary, they have made modifications and not updated the source. This can be checked through a code audit since you have both the sources and the binary. With the AGPL you can download a source tarball but you can not easily verify that the source matches the binary running on the server. If for some reason you suspect this is not true then it might take a legal audit to determine whether that's the case or not. I doubt very much this will be a common occurrence but if a company is refusing to cooperate, someone with standing to sue does just that and a court agrees with it then it might happen.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Alice owns nothing in your scenario, and has no standing to sue.
True, but the Alice/Bob/Claire situation doesn't match the summary:
"I am a recent graduate, and I've been working on my own on a project that uses GPL-licensed libraries. Later a university department hired me, (...)
Unless the hiring agreement contained an explicit copyright assignment, anything he contributed before he got hired will give him standing to sue if they violate the GPL.
Of all those, I suspect Wikipedia is correct. If you plug the formula from wikipedia in wolfram alpha you get this. If you look at the AU page, that distance has been disputed. Also the approximation that the tan() can be ignored is wrong around the 8th significant digit.
None of this happens in basements...
If plural of rain is flood, then yes it does. Sun seems less likely unless you have a freak accident with a tornado, though...
Of course, pretty much everything would contradict some sect's religious beliefs, what he actually means is he wants a Christian theocracy, Many of the colonists were Christians escaping persecution from other Christians, there's good reason why they put freedom of religion - implicitly meaning the freedom of different religious practices - in the Bill of Rights. Why take advice on who should uphold the constitution from someone who wants to retcon it? They've already suckered people into thinking "under God" was in the pledge of allegiance...
9.6 billion light years = 2.94330797 × 10^9 Parsecs
...and Minority Report is ON.
From what I gather the UK system was rather screwed up and in 1832 they had a huge reform, making it more like the US system with first past the post. Not sure how much the Brits cared about what the Americans did at the time, but it seems they already brought the US system back. Not the best choice, then again there weren't that many great choices in Europe at the time...
A more realistic scenario is that my tiny telecommunications company owns a patent on compressing audio that gets included in a larger standard. The company may not have any representatives involved in the standard - in fact, they might not even know that there is an infringing proposal. I think the latter scenario is a lot more common and of course, the standards organization is still (rightfully) on the hook for liability.
Two words: Tough shit. If you want to have a patent, you have to review the standards proposed and see if any patents you have apply. Anything else will just lead to willful blindness where they don't want to be part of the standards organization and instead patent troll the process. There are not that many standards being passed that might be relevant to each patents, it's more than reasonable to demand that. Just like how you can lose your trademark if you don't defend it or there are tons of public notices in the paper who nobody will check if you read or not. If you don't, your problem and your loss. Though personally I think software patents should be abolished world wide altogether.
I don't think it'll in any way be practical to expropriate that IP, which is essentially what you are talking about. However, that is not the biggest problem with patents. The biggest problem with patents is that a standard is never proven patent free, only that no claim of infringement has been made against it yet. This is why I would like standards bodies to have the ability to call for patents, and any patent claim not made within a reasonable time frame is forfeit as related to that standard. A relevant current example is Theora - they claim it's patent free but is it really? What if someone like ISO or ITU-T could publish the standard, demand that any patent claims must be done within three months and if none were made you knew with 100% certainty that any later claims are null and void? It would be wonderful. I don't see this as a way of freeing IP, but it would go a long way of reducing patent FUD and submarine patents. Even if it should turn out to be patented you know which bits and could work to remove those and try again.
The only other thing is to look out for sociopaths. Don't assume everybody you work with has a perfect personality. In practice a great many do not. I can't help you deal with these people. Sometimes they are hard to spot. A good skill it to learn not to reply to trolls. Don't let people wind you up. Getting somebody angry is a great way to beat them at something. If you are good at something you will likely get picked out for treatment early on if this kind of person is around.
Well, having had to deal with one and being the only one of six who managed to have reasonably civil contact, my trick was simply to wear the elephant hide. She tried pretty much all sorts of personal attacks, and constantly vague references to 200-page documents or that she said so in a meeting long ago, no amount of preparation was good enough, she played divide and conquer doing he said she said games, all sorts of things. Some tried getting angry, and she just completely failed to acknowledge any reason to be angry, that just made them 200% more unprofessional in her mind. Everything was always a disaster unless it involved talking to management about something she was responsible for, unless she had some inkling to blame others. She always covered her own back because she had always warned of impending doom so even if struck true it was all "I told you so", even though I suspect more often than not it was caused by her own destructive influence. The only thing I found to work was utter indifference, the moment she realized I didn't give a damn she stopped trying.
Take a stereotypical nerd for example. Poor hygiene, poor social skills, completely out of touch with reality. If this describes you, consider not being yourself. Although typically people that are described like this probably aren't self-aware of such things.
I think some at least are self-aware, they've just decided it's not required to be functional and anything else doesn't really matter. A lot of the "reality" people care about are things you can do awfully fine without like celebrities, sports, reality shows, politics, fashion and whatnot. Social skills often involve the ability to feign interest in someone else's life even when you really don't care. If you just don't care to make the pretenses, if you don't make the slightest effort to have any common themes to talk about or tell them anything about yourself it'll be an awfully short conversation.
I actually think you have the completely opposites, that spend forever with their looks, do never get anything done because they're busy socializing and is into all the happenings and trends and life of those around them. If I was like that I'd feel sort of like an empty shell, where's the real me and why am I busy trying to live the lives of everyone else? Particularly those that get lost in the reality shows on TV, oh sure it's a time filler but like... why? Everything should be a balance, there's rewards in socializing and there's rewards in just being yourself doing what you want.
And going back on topic, talking about your food like that over lunch is a big NO.
Now we see why they say, "Go not to Slashdot for counsel, for they will say both yes and no."
What did you expect? To go to a nutritional expert and be told it should be ALL fats or ALL carbs or ALL vitamins or ALL proteins? Going over the top or completely failing is bad in almost anything.
So in your opinion the question "Is a computer faster than an abacus?" has no answer then? Seriously, get a grip - it's just to tell that it can do some things much faster and that is why you should care. That's the first thing you should get across in any communication, there's tons of things that are technically correct but uninteresting or useless. If you can't get that across within the first 30 seconds, I got better things to do. Or since I'm sitting here I probably don't, but anyway...
But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this.
I haven't yet run into an American who really likes any of them, actually. But if you start making change it'll get much, much worse before it'll get better. A good example is the UK, which has the same lame system and recently held an election - you can find the results here but I'll quote the most important bits:
Conservative - 306 seats - 10,706,647 votes - 47.1% of the seats - 36.1% of the votes
Labour - 258 seats - 8,604,358 votes - 39.7% of the seats - 29.0% of the votes
Liberal Democrat - 57 seats - 6,827,938 votes - 8.8% of the seats - 23.0& of the votes
Now the liberals are a huge third party with 23% of the votes - numbers a US third party can only dream of. What do they get for that? Next to nothing. 9% of the seats while a party only 6% larger gets 40%. Everything is rigged against a third party rising, you can see that even if labour and the liberals joined forced they would barely be larger than the conservaties despite having 52% of the votes between them. The conservatives could form an alliancewith some of the smaller parties and rule with less than 40% popular support. Democracy in action.
The fact that your source material is provided as three quantities (YCbCr, not RGB) doesn't mean four phoshors won't help.
Well there's two possibilities here:
1) You have non-RGB information like for example in xvYCC, which still uses only three quantities but has a much wider gamut. Then four phosphors could definitely help you reproduce more colors. I guess it also proves the problem isn't that you have three quantities, but the way RGB works which doesn't match the eye.
2) You have RGB or clipped-for-RGB YCbCr encoding, then you don't have more than RGB no matter what. In this case, it only makes sense to improve the gamut inside the RGB triangle because LCDs are imperfect things.
Unfortunately BluRays don't support anything outside clipped-for-RGB YCbCr even though some players can play back AVCHD recorded with a xvYCC-capable camera over HDMI 1.3+ to xvYCC-capable TVs. You're talking about a very narrow segment here though.
This is an old case of the chicken and the egg, if you don't have anything but RGB phosphors then only RGB signals make sense. Sony has been one of those pushing for wide gamut signals, wide gamut players (including the PS3) and wide gamut TVs. And also for increased color depth, which will give you more accurate colors but not more colors. Too bad they didn't come up with this before the BluRay spec was made, but then really how many people have noticed the missing colors (which were also missing on DVDs)?
Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins. You can substitute the last two with "lesser evil" and "greater evil" if you want but it still holds true. The US will have either the Democrats or Republicans in office until a armed revolt introduces proportional representation. I assume I don't need to tell you why the incumbents won't help...
As it stands, buying software is kind of like buying music. And neither is really anything like buying, for example, cake. (...) Now I've just described what IS the case, not what OUGHT to be the case. I don't know what the case ought to be.
Principally, it is not necessary that we have to have "sales" of anything. I could lease everything right down to the shirt on my back, it'd all be under the EULA (End User Lease Agreement) which gives me a perpetual, irrevocable lease under this and those conditions. Why then do we want sales? Because sales are simple and practical terms, you give me the product, I give you the money and we each walk our separate ways. For the most part, I can do whatever the hell I want with it and it's none of your business.
Licensing is the way to get around all those pesky rights you are given by a sale. There's is no doubt about this, making something a license instead of a sale is exclusively to the advantage of the licensor and to the disadvantage of the licensee. Software should not be licensed, I should be able to buy a copy equally well if it's a Toyota Prius, a Harry Potter book or Microsoft Office 2010 without any additional strings attached. No reading of a 50-page EULA to see if I can wear this shirt of a demonstration or whether it'll need reactivation if I change my pants.
On the other hand, people who create useful/entertaining/valuable things should be compensated for it, if they so wish. SaaS solves the problem by giving control to the software publishers. The client only gets to use the software when he pays for it, and on the publisher's terms. (...) would that solve the problem?
It'd certainly stop the "problem" of anything ever being yours, even in the license-crippled state. Except I don't see that as a problem. People don't see that as a problem. In fact, they very much like to own things. In fact, it's whenever they realize they didn't really get to buy it despite handing over the cash that they get pissed at DRM and licensing and activations and live internet connection required. Many people on slashdot support the "service and support" business model of open source, which is way different than SaaS. Software leasing has mostly been a flop, as companies realize the only point is to extort a continuous money stream whether you want to upgrade or not.
iTunes did not die when they dropped DRM, the better question is if there's a problem here that needs solving or are there just some executives looking at some highly imaginary number of sales they didn't get? Is there any real evidence of a mass death of games/TV series/movies/bands? I think the only thing pushing for even more SaaS will do is more people pushing back. More people that think pirating is the closest thing they'll come to owning anything, it's after all the only thing that'll run on their computers alone without linking with the mothership.
So we're getting into cloak-and-dagger territory but wouldn't this be a simple way to have a malicious image installed on the client that'll relay logins back to you? If you're first redesigning it I'd make it so you can both verify cryptographic signatures and use SSL. It would be great if you can plug in your diskless machine into a presumed hostile network and know that it'll only connect to your designated boot server no matter what.
First a tip - a line of blank space here and there in that wall of text would do wonders. Talk shows are really cheap and easy to do,that's why they manage 250/year instead of 26/year. I have no basis to compare production crew sizes but I imagine that would go for far less than 2$/episode.
Seriously, you can make a license as "committed" as you want - that is the easy part. The problem is getting enough value to use that license, for example the GPL has long passed critical mass but very many other licenses have not. It might be a "good" license and yet ultimately irrelevant.
For mass distribution of 50GB worth of mass-stamped content, BluRay is pretty good and gotten a lot cheaper than when the PS3 was first introduced. I think the "big name" games will still be on discs, the question is if we'll see anything more like a real app store for consoles. Yes, yes I know there's sorta something like that today but as a mainstream way of downloading games. Perhaps even as an alternative to discs.
First of all, do you watch three seasons of 26 episodes of each show each year? If not, you just tripled the costs to make it look bad. Already you are down to 600-2080$/year. For singles or couples it'll be a lot better than that. And depending on the terms, if you can keep it you won't need to buy any DVDs either. I'd gladly pay 2$/episode but the following requirements are not negotiable: 1. DRM-free 2. Ad free 3. 1080p quality.
I don't know if you've thought about it (clearly you haven't) but Nintendo is screwed now. What trick will they pull out of their hat now? Sony and Microsoft have the (gimmicky, as it was in the Wii) motion control. They have the developers. They have the hardware. Where do you think that leaves Nintendo in 5 years?
With a ton of money and the same creative guys to do something that Sony and Microsoft won't? Nintendo has long since proven they're far more than a one trick pony.
Yes, and despite the FUD-ness there's a ring of truth to it. Many times with the GPL the issue is that the source code they provide doesn't match the binary, they have made modifications and not updated the source. This can be checked through a code audit since you have both the sources and the binary. With the AGPL you can download a source tarball but you can not easily verify that the source matches the binary running on the server. If for some reason you suspect this is not true then it might take a legal audit to determine whether that's the case or not. I doubt very much this will be a common occurrence but if a company is refusing to cooperate, someone with standing to sue does just that and a court agrees with it then it might happen.