Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

squareup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#21

Post by logicallee »

orwin wrote: post #4

II.B.15: use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater; That's spooky. Any idea why?

I looked it up. Agpl is meant to close the loophole whereby, you know Google can use GPL tools while they index the web but I can't demand a copy of their private repos source code, since I just get to use the result (over the web). Agpl closes this loophole.

I think gpl is enough for web apps. I don't think I should have the right to demand all of gmail's or google search's server-side code if they use but don't distribute gpl software as part of making it.

But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code.

I would absolutely demand that anyone working for me not use any agpl software. I think it would taint even the copywrite on a logo.

Maybe I would be tainted by publishing a document they wrote in an agpl text editor, even if they license it to me.

Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong.

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#22

Post by nabla9 »

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm almost certain that Square lawyers fucked up big time.

They looked at the AGPL and completely misunderstood the context. There is no way in hell anyone can interpret AGPL in a way that makes Square responsible for any license violations their customers make selling software.

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#23

Post by snvzz »

nroah wrote: post #19

I don't understand why are there so many proponents of the AGPL when it's one of the most restrictive and therefore against freedom licences there are.

All it does is ensure copyleft works with software as a service, in which you don't even get a binary that you could, with GPL, request the sources for.

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#24

Post by Illniyar »

This seems either a prank or ideologically motivated. Beyond the fact that there is no legal reason to prevent your users from using copyrighted code since you are not breaking copyright if you are not a party to the contract, the wording is bad - there could be similar licenses that are problematic but aren't named AGPL v2 (or greater)

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#25

Post by saurik »

nroah wrote: post #19

I don't understand why are there so many proponents of the AGPL when it's one of the most restrictive and therefore against freedom licences there are.

It removes developer freedoms in order to ensure user freedoms; claiming it is "against freedoms" is like saying the Bill of Rights--which restricts the acts of government--is "against freedom".

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#26

Post by proaralyst »

nroah wrote: post #19

I don't understand why are there so many proponents of the AGPL when it's one of the most restrictive and therefore against freedom licences there are.

Because for some people, open source is not about freedom of use of the software, but freedom of source. They feel that existing FOSS licences can't protect against modification without release in the case of cloud usage, so they use this licence to protect the openness of modification.

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#27

Post by snvzz »

logicallee wrote: post #21
orwin wrote: post #4

II.B.15: use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater; That's spooky. Any idea why?

I looked it up. Agpl is meant to close the loophole whereby, you know Google can use GPL tools while they index the web but I can't demand a copy of their private repos source code, since I just get to use the result (over the web). Agpl closes this loophole. I think gpl is enough for web apps. I don't think I should have the right to demand all of gmail's or google search's server-side code if they use but don't dis…

>But all companies need to steer really clear of agpl code. Even editing an image using an agpl image editor could taint the image, even though you're not exporting any code.

This is an outrageous claim. Citation needed.

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#28

Post by mfer »

bitL wrote: post #10

Scratching Square off my list of service providers. I bet half of their datacenter software is in some way or the other using AGPL-licensed stuff; hypocrisy is just insane.

It might be GPL but I would guess it's not AGPL. AGPL requires you to open source the code to run the service. They've not done that. Their legal people are likely on top of this. It's not hard to run a SaaS and avoid all AGPL

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#29

Post by raverbashing »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #6

I don't know if the response here is good, but https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078... , gives a rationale for not including any AGPL "in" another work and might thus be the reason for the exclusion. See also, https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2630... .

Yeah so if your service completely unrelated to the Stripe service uses AGPL you have to remove it?

Doesn't sound good at all

Re: Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores

#30

Post by bubblethink »

nabla9 wrote: post #22

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm almost certain that Square lawyers fucked up big time. They looked at the AGPL and completely misunderstood the context. There is no way in hell anyone can interpret AGPL in a way that makes Square responsible for any license violations their customers make selling software.

And even if there were liability concerns due to copyleft or other clauses in AGPL, singling out AGPL makes no sense. If they want to avoid copyleft, it should be better phrased like so.
Post reply on HN