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

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: AGPL License

#61

Post by sneak »

I don’t think that copyright enforcement should be used against me based on whether or not I run a webserver alongside a modified application or not.

I’m all on board with copyleft in general, but the “service provider loophole” just seems like anti-business sentiment. People using modified free software to provide services useful enough to pay for is a good thing.

Forcing someone to publish their own changes simply because they run a business always seems to me like violent coercion, using copyright as a stick; much moreso than forcing someone to release source for object code they are already releasing.

Free software is a tool. Using that tool to create a successful business isn’t cheating anyone out of anything.

The software is absolutely not free as in freedom if I have one set of rights with the ethernet cable unplugged and a different set of rights with the ethernet cable connected.

Stop the service provider hate and avoid the AGPL and AGPL software.

Re: AGPL License

#62

Post by aaronm67 »

protanopia wrote: post #58
zeveb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IMO, the goal of open source licenses is to encourage more usage of open source. If AGPL is preventing companies from using it, then it is accomplishing the opposite.

Every license has different goals - that's the whole point of having different licenses.

The goal of this license is to encourage more companies to contribute to open source, not to encourage usage.

Re: AGPL License

#63

Post by belorn »

theawesomekhan wrote: post #6

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

Google can afford to re-implement software. It is questionable if they even get hurt much by release delays, especially if the new product is within their eco system. Thats the benefit of having monopoly or monopoly-like position in a market.

If you are on the other hand in a highly competitive market then re-implementing code and delaying launches can result in being replaced by some with more flexible approach. My go-to example is the gaming industry. As an example, if you have a webbased ticket system it might not matter much if there is a download button, and developer time is much better spent on finishing the actually game than writing one more ticket system.

Game studios in general seems to have very flexible approach to licenses. To my knowledge they will apply all methods if it means saving time, as long as they can keep the game itself proprietary and sell copies. They will any software directly if they can, buy if it makes economical sense, or even just ask the author for an exception (with attribution in the credits).

Re: AGPL License

#64

Post by thomzane »

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…

The thing about modern code is that anyone can take a project, turn it's function into a webpage, and charge money without revealing that you could run the program on your own machine.

If you license all of your code under the AGPLv3, you will at least see if someone is using it out in the wild and maybe even get some contributions to your project.

Re: AGPL License

#66

Post by sparkie »

Dayshine wrote: post #31
eitland wrote: post #30

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.

My understanding is you can simplify it into roughly three tiers of "connection": 1. Same application, dll linked 2. Same computer, IPC linked 3. Different computer, HTTP/etc linked Companies that use AGPL will tell you that all three are covered by AGPL. More reasonable people will tell you that 1 is definitely covered, and 2 is a grey area.

My understanding of copyright is that the method of linking is more of a vague guideline than any set in stone legal principle. Copyright determines whether or not some work is a derivative work of an already covered work. If you simply proxy access to a covered work through a different communication interface, but still depend on it for the essential functionality of your own work, you are unlikely to get a free pass to evade the terms of the license.

Only a court can make the final decision about whether a work is a derivative work or not. As developers we need to use our common sense to determine whether what we are doing is creating new or derivative works. We've seen from Google vs Oracle that it is not necessarily clear cut as to the extent a work is covered, which is why you should never assume that it's OK to ignore license terms for some perceived "grey area," and if you have any doubts, you should seek a professional opinion.

Re: AGPL License

#67

Post by belorn »

protanopia wrote: post #58
zeveb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IMO, the goal of open source licenses is to encourage more usage of open source. If AGPL is preventing companies from using it, then it is accomplishing the opposite.

A license is a legal document that specific under what conditions that the author allow others to use their software. Nothing more, nothing less. Open source licenses and free software licenses are standardization of common goals and conditions, and encourage usage is one such goal, but its not the only goal. Some authors want more like share-alike, attribution, and fair competition.

Re: AGPL License

#68

Post by mjs2600 »

telmo wrote: post #9
mikekchar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For a lot of people, free software is about collaboration, not competition.

Enforcing and incentivizing collaboration also seems like a good argument for licensing open source projects with the AGPL. It prevents people who are not willing to contribute things made using your software back to open source from using it.

Re: AGPL License

#69

Post by kick »

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.

Absolute malarkey. All academic research should use and produce free software. This used to be the case; that it isn't now is terribly stupid, especially now that distribution costs have gone from "little" to "nothing." It doesn't "cost" anything to throw a tarball on the internet.

Any charity that goes out of its way to produce proprietary software doesn't deserve anyone's money to begin with; they're wasting funds.

The product of government-funded academic research is already primarily going to private, for-profit journals, being effectively stolen away from the taxpayer. Proposing that we should make it easier for academic research to completely ignore the common good is ridiculous.

Re: AGPL License

#70

Post by the8472 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #59
ben-schaaf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The mechanics of putting a tarball somewhere on the Internet are simple and cheap, but that action also directly and indirectly greatly increases the potential for liability . This effectively requires the organization to create additional management and processes to mitigate this increased potential for liability. It is a headache many organizations want to avoid or can't afford. Yes, "dumping source code" is simple…

Which liabilities? Most open source licenses come with a WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND clause.
Post reply on HN