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

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: AGPL License

#91

Post by jrockway »

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.

I agree with you. I am pretty sure the AGPL exists so that you get the "warm fuzzies" of "open source", but the company that wrote the software can still profit from it as though the source wasn't available. It is also administratively easier than making a "hobbyist edition" for people that want to screw around with the software in their free time in the hopes that they someday make money with it and buy the full version. (Also, in the event that you do license the software and need to make a small customization, it's administratively easier. Just edit the code and you're done, as opposed to the company having to set up a meeting with your team, looping in the sales engineer to see how much to charge you, then having a year of weekly status update meetings to see how your feature is proceeding.)

The problem I have is that I think truly free software is relatively unsustainable. Look at Docker's financials after basically revolutionizing how software is distributed and deployed. Look at big projects like Kubernetes; do you think you would convince investors to fund a project with a pitch like "we're going to give it all away for free with no encumbrances". Nope. It only works when you already made money from writing proprietary software. The AGPL attempts to be a middle ground, which I do respect. I am personally afraid to touch it. So are many other people.

Re: AGPL License

#92

Post by mbakke »

tptacek wrote: post #81
giancarlostoro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I avoid AGPL projects for potential ideas / side projects that could potentially turn useful.

You avoid using it, or avoid using third party code that uses it? The latter makes sense. The former does not, as you can relicense any time you want.

Only if you are the sole copyright holder, i.e. no (nontrivial) external contributions.

Re: AGPL License

#93

Post by zwily »

pmontra wrote: post #88
flynnsdeadman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except you cannot, once its AGPL youre stuck with it

If you're the owner of the code, all the past versions of the project are and will be AGPL forever (or MIT, or BSD) but all the new versions will be whatever you want. You can also dual license. If someone forks the old AGPL version (or MIT, or BSD) they can keep that license on the fork, but they can't use your new code.

Yes, this is why so many projects have Contributor License Agreements - so the project owner can relicense at will.

It’s also why you shouldn’t sign a CLA if you disagree with that possibility.

Re: AGPL License

#94

Post by giancarlostoro »

mbakke wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You avoid using it, or avoid using third party code that uses it? The latter makes sense. The former does not, as you can relicense any time you want.

Only if you are the sole copyright holder, i.e. no (nontrivial) external contributions.

Which is why I avoid it directly, unless I'm not touching the code at all. If I'm just using it as-is, then I don't care.

Re: AGPL License

#95

Post by justinc8687 »

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…

On a related note, say I have proprietary software A, but want to offer my customers the ability to use AGPL software hosted by me (Redash) on their data.

If the only link between my software and AGPL software is through SAML (and the customer DB), is there any "link" between the two programs for AGPL purposes?

Re: AGPL License

#96

Post by pornel »

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.

AGPL is not an Open Source license, but a Free Software license.

Its goal is not to help corporations, but to give end users freedom to control software they use.

Re: AGPL License

#97

Post by cycloptic »

pornel wrote: post #96
protanopia wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AGPL is not an Open Source license, but a Free Software license. Its goal is not to help corporations, but to give end users freedom to control software they use.

>AGPL is not an Open Source license, but a Free Software license.

No, this is wrong. The OSI has the AGPL in its list of approved licenses. https://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0

Re: AGPL License

#98

Post by pornel »

bo1024 wrote: post #76

Not common that you see a philosophy more radical than Stallman's. As I understand Stallman's free software philosophy -- the GPL -- the idea is that code must respect the person running it / using it. Under this philosophy, if I am communicating with you, it's not up to me what tools you use in formulating your responses. And whether those tools respect your freedom or not. So GPL only applies to those directly usin…

SaaS is a workaround for GPL, and AGPL is a bugfix for that.

Nowadays people run code remotely, and GPL didn't take that into account. AGPL is still about giving users freedom to control the code they use, and works regardless whether the code is run on a local machine or a remote server.

Re: AGPL License

#99

Post by tbrugz »

smarx007 wrote: post #54

I was thinking that ALGPL is a worthy addition. We need a licence that still applies to use in microservices and other code that is not shared with the user but still shows consideration for investment into proprietary code and only limits its provisions to the code under the given license. I would gladly license my work under ALGPL if it existed.

These references also argue for ALGPL:

https://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2012/09/07/opening-the-infrast...

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5803...

Re: AGPL License

#100

Post by seba_dos1 »

cycloptic wrote: post #97
pornel wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL is not an Open Source license, but a Free Software license. Its goal is not to help corporations, but to give end users freedom to control software they use.

>AGPL is not an Open Source license, but a Free Software license. No, this is wrong. The OSI has the AGPL in its list of approved licenses. https://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0

No, this is not wrong (but you're not wrong either).

When discussing the goals behind AGPL, it definitely shouldn't be described as Open Source license (although it technically is one), but a Free Software one, since the whole difference between those two terms (highlighting the political issue as opposed to technical one) is actually relevant to the intention behind the license.

The goal behind licenses written by FSF is to ensure that distributors of your code do not restrict freedoms of the users that the license guarantees them. If you think it's about "encouraging more usage of open source", you clearly miss the point of copyleft licenses.

Post reply on HN