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

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by klez »

0x0 wrote: post #76
mfer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Didn't debian change to the AGPL version of ghostscript in a patch security update? If you use imagemagick or other pdf related libraries that maks use of ghostscript, this could happen easier than you think.

> Didn't debian change to the AGPL version of ghostscript in a patch security update?

Mostly, yes[0]. Parts of the package are under BSD, others FreeType license, others GPL etc.

I don't know which ones are used in imagemagick, so I can't say whether AGPL "infected" it.

[0] https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/g/gh...

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

#92

Post by dylan604 »

From the comment thread, there seems to be a bit of confusion on what the AGPL actually can do, so people are just avoiding things under AGPL as an abundance of caution. It seems that the license has never been tested in legal challenges. Seems like this would be something right up the EFF's alley. Is it really in the open source community's advantage to have something this confusing lingering for so long, or would it be better to get this kind of confusion cleared up altogether?

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

#93

Post by resoluteteeth »

dylan604 wrote: post #92

From the comment thread, there seems to be a bit of confusion on what the AGPL actually can do, so people are just avoiding things under AGPL as an abundance of caution. It seems that the license has never been tested in legal challenges. Seems like this would be something right up the EFF's alley. Is it really in the open source community's advantage to have something this confusing lingering for so long, or would i…

I don't think it's just the wording of the license, though. It's really hard to envision every possibility and decide how the AGPL should handle it. E.g., are they really going to add something as specific as "If a cloud service provider hosts its own code along with user code that includes AGPL code, the cloud service provider is not bound by the AGPL and the user does not need to include the provider's bundled code when they release the source code in compliance with the AGPL."?

Plus, if you treat the cloud service provider's code separately from the user's code, there is a pretty strong danger of opening loopholes that defeat the entire purpose of the AGPL. It's not clear that people releasing code under the AGPL would even want the AGPL to be interpreted that way.

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

#94

Post by anoncake »

AlphaWeaver wrote: post #3

Relevant quoted text from the article: > B. Content Restrictions. In addition to the restrictions set forth in these Additional Product Terms, the General Terms and Payment Terms, you will not: [...] > 15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;

What about:

- AGPL v2? it says:

> This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version.

- Dually licensed software? Does this prohibit software licensed under BSD and AGPL? Granted, the only reason to do that is to troll Square.

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

#95

Post by floatingatoll »

If your operating system is AGPL3+, are you prohibited from using tools upon it to access any/all Square services for any reason? Are you in violation of every copyright agreement on your hard drive due to your failure to reconcile the AGPL3+ terms with the software licenses you are integrating with the operating system through installation and use?

I can see why they would want to explicitly decline to participate in AGPL infections.

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

#96

Post by anoncake »

saurik wrote: post #25
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".

Not just user freedoms, the freedom of other developers too.

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

#97

Post by yarrel »

floatingatoll wrote: post #95

If your operating system is AGPL3+, are you prohibited from using tools upon it to access any/all Square services for any reason? Are you in violation of every copyright agreement on your hard drive due to your failure to reconcile the AGPL3+ terms with the software licenses you are integrating with the operating system through installation and use? I can see why they would want to explicitly decline to participate i…

Those questions can as easily be asked of proprietary software with EULAs.

And "infection" is a creepy way to write "compliance".

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

#98

Post by JoshTriplett »

raverbashing wrote: post #29
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

Square, not Stripe.

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

#99

Post by snvzz »

logicallee wrote: post #67
snvzz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Dude, I literally didn't know what agpl is. I found: >Just my impression after 5 minutes of research. If someone has more detailed legal position please do correct whatever I got wrong. after 5 minutes of Googling. downvoting my personal research results after 5 minutes of Googling won't get anyone to answer with the corrected version. I had never heard of agpl until I googled it and summarized what I saw. It's a sum…

>It's a summary. if you put up a web app where you modify open source software as part of your stack, you have to publish those changes if people ask for them

Only specifically your changes to AGPL code, but otherwise correct.

This is reasonably well described on GNU's own page[0] on the AGPL.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

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

#100

Post by floatingatoll »

yarrel wrote: post #97
floatingatoll wrote: post #95

If your operating system is AGPL3+, are you prohibited from using tools upon it to access any/all Square services for any reason? Are you in violation of every copyright agreement on your hard drive due to your failure to reconcile the AGPL3+ terms with the software licenses you are integrating with the operating system through installation and use? I can see why they would want to explicitly decline to participate i…

Those questions can as easily be asked of proprietary software with EULAs. And "infection" is a creepy way to write "compliance".

Most proprietary software with EULAs does not contain a copyleft provision that forces itself upon other software. I find copyleft creepy and power-hungry, so my choice of word reflects how I perceive it.
Post reply on HN