41–50 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is. Enterprise services. The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't really disprove my point -- or the original authors.
[deleted]
I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not ha…
Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the execution of the software.
diff -u gpl-3.0.txt agpl-3.0.txt
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
- GNU General Public License for more details.
+ GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
- You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License
along with this program. If not, see .
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
- If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
-notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
-
- Copyright (C)
- This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
- This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
- under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
-
-The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
-parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
-might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".
+ If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer
+network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to
+get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its
+interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive
+of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different
+solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the
+specific requirements.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
-For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
+For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see
.
-
- The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
-into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
-may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
-the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
-Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
-.Earlier quoted context omitted.
In contrast, as a company looking to use and contribute to open-source software, BSD licensed code is an easier sell because you aren't locked to purchasing a commercial non-OSS license from the copyright holders (see: Oracle/Sun/Monty regarding MySQL).
Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users . You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient. You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it'…
That sounds almost as ridiculous as someone saying:
"You use the GPL license when you want to scare off anyone else interested in using your code."
Seriously, though, there are a dozen examples with the code that runs GitHub to dispute your statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users . You can lift a BSD package wholesale into a new white-label product, and you don't even have to tell the author! That sure is convenient. You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code. But, for the most part, I think using the BSD license means you're not going to care about the commercial value of your code, because if it'…
"You use the BSD license when you don't care about the commercial value of your code." That sounds almost as ridiculous as someone saying: "You use the GPL license when you want to scare off anyone else interested in using your code." Seriously, though, there are a dozen examples with the code that runs GitHub to dispute your statement.
I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not ha…
While making a diff of the AGPL version 3 and GPL version 3, I can't see the point where you are not allowed to run the program. Can you point us to the respective part of the text assuming that fact? Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the exe…
The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user.
The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providing it input can get its source, with an advertising clause. Anyone bound by the license does not have Freedom Zero.
I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not ha…
The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy. I doubt he approves now. I've not been able to find a single essay or even email from him regarding the AGPL, which is interesting considering his standard evangelism regarding other licenses. And he regards SaaS as non-free, regardless of whether the so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While making a diff of the AGPL version 3 and GPL version 3, I can't see the point where you are not allowed to run the program. Can you point us to the respective part of the text assuming that fact? Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the exe…
Clever of you to use diff! The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user. The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providi…
Regarding the "enforcement boundary", the AGPL is more there to not abuse the "private use" ("not conveying") of a free software as described here :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
In AGPL, You can run the software but if you make it accessible to end-users via a public network in a interactive way, this is considered as conveying.