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

AGPL License

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: AGPL License

#21

Post by juuul »

wongarsu wrote: post #10
betamaxthetape wrote: post #5

I'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…

A potential pitfall is that only AGPLv3 and GPLv3 are directly compatible (in the sense of producing programs created from both AGPLv3 and GPLv3 code without violating either license). That's not possible with GPLv2 or AGPLv1 in any combination, and there's still some code-bases that will be GPLv2 forever. But if that's not a concern then I would agree that AGPL is exactly how the GPL should look like in the age of S…

That's not entirely true. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 have explicit clauses that allow the linking of GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code into a single work without violating either license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#...

You're right about GPLv2 though.

Re: AGPL License

#22

Post by zeveb »

Dayshine wrote: post #20

If 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.

Why would charities and academic institutions be writing anything but free software?

Re: AGPL License

#23

Post by alerighi »

newfeatureok wrote: post #12

I 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…

In practice applies the same rules as the GPL except that they cover not only the distribution of copies of the software but also the use of the software in a network service. In practice if something is considered derived work under the GPL is the same also for the AGPL, and the source code must be released to all the people that uses the service (if the service is used internally, you can avoid to do so, also with the standard GPL).

So: 1a. violation

1b. ok if used internally and employee doesn't request the code

1c. violation, doesn't matter here the fact that is AGPL, is a violation also for the standard GPL

1d. if AlienNetflixViewer uses FooProject is derived work and thus must also be released under the AGPL

2. yes, as long you use only the code with the MIT license you can do that under their license

3. he can be sued for violation of the copyright. In practice it's rare that he will get any penalty in real life, especially if we talk about a big corporation...

4. Same as previous answer, in theory you can sue someone if he violates the license

5. Again, if you suspect a violation of the AGPL you can try to sue them. But it's rare that you will get anything done, also if someone is not stupid he will use the code under AGPL and masquerade that, so you will have no way to know (it's difficult to know if someone violates the GPL, good luck finding someone that violates AGPL).

In practice AGPL is a license that is practically impossible to enforce.

Re: AGPL License

#24

Post by imtringued »

mikekchar wrote: post #4
brylie wrote: post #2

Copyleft, and AGPL specifically, seems like a good fit for large applications, whereas more permissive licenses work well for smaller libraries.

I specifically use it because while I'm committed to writing free (as in freedom software), my downstream users may not be. I'd rather they didn't have more options than I do if they decide to compete against me. Free software empowers the downstream user, so I kind of think of it a bit like surfing. You potentially have all this extra energy, but that energy can crush you if you don't walk a very tight line. As the…

I use the AGPL for user facing applications. I personally have nothing against someone taking my project and improving it as long as the project stays opensource. If they somehow manage to turn that into a business model it's fine too but what I have seen is that companies use their resource advantage to destroy the original project if it is permissively licensed.

With libraries it's obvious that you are doing it for the benefit of application developers and most of those are proprietary but they are not competing against you, they are collaborating. Therefore a permissive license for libraries is a much better choice.

Re: AGPL License

#25

Post by zeveb »

theawesomekhan wrote: post #6

Google does not allow usage of AGPL code. https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/

Sounds like it's working as intended: preventing services from restricting the rights of their users to run, modify & share source code.

Re: AGPL License

#26

Post by xtf »

Dayshine wrote: post #20

If 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.

They also can use and improve it and give these improvements back to the source.

Re: AGPL License

#27

Post by ben-schaaf »

zeveb wrote: post #22
Dayshine wrote: post #20

If 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.

Why would charities and academic institutions be writing anything but free software?

I never understand this. I get not wanting to build a community around a project, handling contributions, etc. But why not just dump the source code somewhere?

Re: AGPL License

#28

Post by Dayshine »

zeveb wrote: post #22
Dayshine wrote: post #20

If 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.

Why would charities and academic institutions be writing anything but free software?

A research project might be collecting sensitive personal information.

A charity might have a public but internal management system for staff or related organisations to organise on.

In either case, being open source increases security risk.

Re: AGPL License

#29

Post by Dayshine »

xtf wrote: post #26
Dayshine wrote: post #20

If 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.

They also can use and improve it and give these improvements back to the source.

What improvements?

AGPL requires open-sourcing your entire project (authentication, payment platform, etc) just to link to a backend PDF processing library.

AGPL does not have a linking exception.

Re: AGPL License

#30

Post by eitland »

My questions are:

- if I allow users to use an AGPL product on my server and that AGPL licensed product connect to a commercially licensed application server or database on my intranet, will that be a problem?

- will it be a problem if the commercial application server connects to the AGPL licensed product to fetch data?

Except for these two points I now feel I'm starting to understand the AGPL, kind of.

Post reply on HN