Google does not allow usage of AGPL code. https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
Same here.
Not sure where to find a good list of who allows what.
AGPL License
11–20 of 111 posts
Re: AGPL License
#12I have some questions about AGPL if anyone has answers:
1. If you have code, let's say FooProject, that's AGPL. In which of these scenarios is someone in the wrong for using it?
1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL.
1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet, but does not open source FacebookInternal with AGPL.
1c. Microsoft uses FooProject in a special version of Office, which is only distributed via BluRay and does not open source Office under AGPL.
1d. Netflix uses FooProject in AlienNetflixViewer, which is used over the internet, and makes some modifications to FooProject as its used in AlienNetflixViewer. They open source ModifiedFooProject under AGPL, but not AlienNetflixViewer
2. If you have FooProject, and you have 3 libarires, LibraryOne, LibraryTwo, and LibraryThree included in FooProject that are under the MIT license, can someone take Library[Number] and use it under the MIT license? Let's assume these are not actually separate projects, and for all intents and purposes it's the same project as FooProject, but for whatever reason the folders associated with each library has its own license.
3. Assuming someone uses an AGPL project and does not follow the license, what's the penalty? What if its so incorporated into its project its effectively impossible to remove?
4. How do you enforce someone using the AGPL?
5. If you go to a public facing site and suspect that they're using an AGPL project (perhaps because of the nature of the API calls or the client facing JavaScript) can you demand to see the full source?
Re: AGPL License
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently used the iText Library for PDF parsing in java. Everything was alright until I discovered their AGPL license. https://itextpdf.com/en/how-buy/agpl-license Since our product was proprietary, we had to remove the library since our product would also come under the AGPL license or we would have to buy their commercial version, for which we can get a "quote"( https://itextpdf.com/en/how-buy )
What did you replace it with? Why wouldn't iText deserve your money if you were using it in your commercial product?
We are awaiting a response from IText for the license, but for now Apache PDFBox got us the same results
Re: AGPL License
#14I've always wondered about whether the AGPL is a good fit for software that isn't accessed over the network. At first glance this would appear to offer the exact same rights as the GPL in this scenario, however you then have the protection of the AGPL if the software was ever incorporated into a networked program. Does anyone have any experience with this? Are there pitfalls to using the AGPL for a regular program th…
I recently used the iText Library for PDF parsing in java. Everything was alright until I discovered their AGPL license. https://itextpdf.com/en/how-buy/agpl-license Since our product was proprietary, we had to remove the library since our product would also come under the AGPL license or we would have to buy their commercial version, for which we can get a "quote"( https://itextpdf.com/en/how-buy )
I'm pretty sure that's the intended effect in this case: force you to either open source your product or buy a commercial license (or use the ancient version from before the license update).
Re: AGPL License
#15Google does not allow usage of AGPL code. https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
If you work in a startup, it will bite you during due diligence when a potential acquirer is evaluating your intellectual property. I would give the AGPL a wide berth.
Re: AGPL License
#16Google does not allow usage of AGPL code. https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
OP is speaking hypothetically- the question is perfectly valid and asks for which of the scenarios are okay.
Re: AGPL License
#17I have some questions about AGPL if anyone has answers: 1. If you have code, let's say FooProject, that's AGPL. In which of these scenarios is someone in the wrong for using it? 1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL. 1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet, but does not open source FacebookI…
[deleted]
Re: AGPL License
#18I have some questions about AGPL if anyone has answers: 1. If you have code, let's say FooProject, that's AGPL. In which of these scenarios is someone in the wrong for using it? 1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL. 1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet, but does not open source FacebookI…
IANAL (ofcourse) but in my limited experience:
1a: Not allowed provided because of AGPL (though would be allowed if it is GPL)
1b: Allowed, provided it is purely internal (as described here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... )
1c: Not allowed (this is a distribution, and actually is also in violation of general GPL)
1d: Not allowed, linking against the library means using it, which means GPL violation.
2: If (x) is licenses as MIT and does not contain AGPL underneath (it shouldn't, they are not compatible), you can take X under that MIT license. Regardless of actual repository layout.
3: Penalty is a pretty grey area, and this is a civil suite, not a criminal suite. As a result it goes into damages etc
4: I reckon EFF etc. Look for "GPL enforcement" (AGPL is not very different)
5: You can try.. but I reckon only in the discovery etc for a lawsuit a judge can force them to give access to the source-code to verify your claim.
For all intents and purposes, AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with the addendum that distribution also covers "As a Service". Also.. at our company we completely banned AGPL because we simply don't want to deal with any potential violations. So I reckon 1b in your example would also not happen in a place like Facebook (I reckon all 4 companies have an AGPL ban in place :) )
Re: AGPL License
#19I have some questions about AGPL if anyone has answers: 1. If you have code, let's say FooProject, that's AGPL. In which of these scenarios is someone in the wrong for using it? 1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL. 1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet, but does not open source FacebookI…
IANAL
> 1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one of its GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL.
Depends. GoogleApi may fall under any of these three cases:
i) is considered a covered work (A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.), then it must be AGPL, therefore it falls under paragraph 1 of section 13, which means Google must offer the source of GoogleApi and FooProject. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
ii) is considered combined/linked with FooProject, then GoogleApi may be AGPL or GPL (paragraph 2 of section 13). If it's AGPL, then same as point i; if it's GPL then I believe Google would only have to redistribute the code of FooProject if modified (but not GoogleApi because GPL doesn't require it)
iii) neither, eg. if GoogleApi communicates with FooProject over an internal network: then I don't know.
> 1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet
AGPL only considers users (ie. people who can access the software): "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network"
> 1c. Microsoft uses FooProject in a special version of Office, which is only distributed via BluRay and does not open source Office under AGPL.
Basically the same as GPL: "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section6
> 1d. Netflix uses FooProject in AlienNetflixViewer, which is used over the internet, and makes some modifications to FooProject as its used in AlienNetflixViewer. They open source ModifiedFooProject under AGPL, but not AlienNetflixViewer
see 1a
> 2. If you have FooProject, and you have 3 libarires, LibraryOne, LibraryTwo, and LibraryThree included in FooProject that are under the MIT license, can someone take Library[Number] and use it under the MIT license?
That's the definition of them being under MIT license.
> 3. Assuming someone uses an AGPL project and does not follow the license, what's the penalty? What if its so incorporated into its project its effectively impossible to remove?
licenses like AGPL grant the right to use software if the user follows certain restrictions. ("user" means developers using the code, here.): All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section2
If you do not follow these restrictions, then you do not have the right to the software, so it is a copyright violation.
> 4. How do you enforce someone using the AGPL?
Sue for copyright infringement, because someone used your program without permission.
> 5. If you go to a public facing site and suspect that they're using an AGPL project (perhaps because of the nature of the API calls or the client facing JavaScript) can you demand to see the full source?
I don't know. All I can find is that: "If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so."
Re: AGPL License
#20If you're considering adopting AGPL and the reason is to prevent commercial abuse of your work:
Please consider adding a non-commercial use exemption, for charities and academic research. These organisations can't afford the cost of open-sourcing their entire project.