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

The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 341 posts

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#31

Post by hyperpape »

"The Google page about the AGPL details inaccurate (but common1) misconceptions about the obligations of the AGPL that don’t follow from the text."

"The reason they spread these misconceptions is straightforward: they want to discourage people from using the AGPL, because they cannot productize such software effectively."

"Ask yourself: why is documentation of internal-facing decisions like what software licenses to use being published in a public place?"

To be perfectly clear, your claim is:

- Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble

- Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons

- Google adheres to that policy

- Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google

Have I understood correctly?

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#32

Post by plus »

dvt wrote: post #6

> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. That's why people don't use AGPL, and why I personally don't release any code under (A)GPL. If you want to make free software, make free software and release your code under Apache or MIT. And if you really care about attribution, use CC BY 3.0. Legally, you don't want to deal with the burden of constantly checking if you're complying with some…

It sounds like you are arguing against a different point than Drew is making here. He is saying that the AGPL is no more viral than the GPL, and that its added restrictions aren't particularly onerous. You seem to be arguing against the whole GPL family of licenses, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but doesn't really speak to what Drew is talking about.

> This is true, and I don't see much wrong with it. I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code.

I would suggest taking another look at Drew's argument for the AGPL:

> The reason they spread these misconceptions is straightforward: they want to discourage people from using the AGPL, because they cannot productize such software effectively. Google wants to be able to incorporate FOSS software into their products and sell it to users without the obligation to release their derivative works. Google is an Internet company, and they offer Internet services. The original GPL doesn’t threaten their scheme because their software is accessed over the Internet, not distributed to end-users directly.

Whether or not this is true of Google in particular, it is true that if you are a company writing open-source software that is accessed over the internet, the AGPL makes it more difficult for competitors to benefit from your work while keeping their improvements secret. If it was GPL-licensed, competitors could use it however they want without releasing their modified source so long as the software isn't "distributed".

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#33

Post by cic48 »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #12

> Obligatory: I’m not a lawyer; this is for informational purposes only. and > Google states that if, for example, Google Maps used PostGIS as its data store, and PostGIS used the AGPL, Google would be required to release the Google Maps code. This is not true. They would be required to release their PostGIS patches in this situation. AGPL does not extend the GPL in that it makes the Internet count as a form of linki…

I’ve taken AGPL through two FAANG reviews. Both arrived at the same very-much-not-FUD legal conclusion.

Paragraph 1 of section 13 requires modifications to be disclosed and source code for them to be offered to remote users. The license uses the term of art Corresponding Source for this.

Corresponding Source is defined in section 1 in a crystal clear way. Two separate teams of lawyers concluded that they could coherently argue the Corresponding Source definition implied not only the modified AGPL software, but also stuff that merely _uses_ it, on the basis that “scripts to control” among other things implies the infrastructure most shops build around software, such as Borg configuration and possibly by extension Borg. After all, a modified version of PostGIS is only useful to run in context, and Corresponding Source requires the context.

AGPL is unchallenged in court. The risk to being wrong about it as huge. It’s risk aversion, not ideology, and it’s important to remember that identifying an argument as part of legal review does not call it the correct one. Anyone who’s ever worked with legal matters knows there is no such thing as “correct,” there are rulings. The existence of the argument condemns the license for FAANG, not its validity. Testing that validity against a claim is perilous.

Perhaps if random engineers stopped calling legal opinion FUD and falsehoods and took a moment to listen to the feedback from lawyers who didn’t write the license, we’d get somewhere with finding a palatable license for all parties. Instead, we get a holy war.

Strong disagree on developers not shooting themselves in the foot. If it’s on GitHub, it ships. If you think about licenses in your day to day engineering, you are the 1%.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#34

Post by jgilias »

So. From the POW of a total lay person as far as it comes to law.

Someone writes a blog post with an 'IANAL' disclaimer on top saying that what Google's army of lawyers have gathered from reading a legal document is false, and I should favor his interpretation instead. I don't know, I'm not exactly convinced.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#35

Post by alex_young »

Companies like MongoDB release a 'free' version using AGPL and a commercial version under no such provision, and use this in marketing material to convince commercial users to buy licensing so they can incorporate their DB into web based products.

If this distinction is without merit for those simply using MongoDB as an unmodified DB, this seems like it wouldn't actually work so well as a sales tool.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#36

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

jsnell wrote: post #10

> Google states that if, for example, Google Maps used PostGIS as its data store, and PostGIS used the AGPL, Google would be required to release the Google Maps code. I can’t see that statement, or anything like it, in the linked article. Am I missing something?

You're not. The author writes "Google states" and then follows it with his own example/interpretation of Google's policy. That's really not "Google states" at all, it's "My example of Google's policy is...".

The nearest statement in TFA is the sentence beginning "Because Google’s core products are services that users interact with over a remote network interface (Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube)...".

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#37

Post by ddevault »

dvt wrote: post #6

> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. That's why people don't use AGPL, and why I personally don't release any code under (A)GPL. If you want to make free software, make free software and release your code under Apache or MIT. And if you really care about attribution, use CC BY 3.0. Legally, you don't want to deal with the burden of constantly checking if you're complying with some…

>This is true, and I don't see much wrong with it. I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code. What if I just don't feel like up-streaming? Free is meant to be free, and (A)GPL does incur a cost -- at the bare minimum an ideological one.

You don't need to go upstream - you just need to provide source to users. I explained this in the article, and it's not especially onerous. You've also fallen for a common misconception: the "free" in free software is not about cost, it's about "freedom". The GPL family of licenses are designed to ensure the freedom of the user, not the developer, to view and modify and improve and redistribute the source code for programs that they use.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#38

Post by an_opabinia »

cic48 wrote: post #33
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #12

> Obligatory: I’m not a lawyer; this is for informational purposes only. and > Google states that if, for example, Google Maps used PostGIS as its data store, and PostGIS used the AGPL, Google would be required to release the Google Maps code. This is not true. They would be required to release their PostGIS patches in this situation. AGPL does not extend the GPL in that it makes the Internet count as a form of linki…

I’ve taken AGPL through two FAANG reviews. Both arrived at the same very-much-not-FUD legal conclusion. Paragraph 1 of section 13 requires modifications to be disclosed and source code for them to be offered to remote users. The license uses the term of art Corresponding Source for this. Corresponding Source is defined in section 1 in a crystal clear way. Two separate teams of lawyers concluded that they could cohere…

Yes but on the other hand:

> In truth, Google was never going to buy your software.

So what difference does it make? Stop making stuff for Google for free if they won’t contribute back. It’s that simple.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#39

Post by searchableguy »

ddevault wrote: post #30
searchableguy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should have a standardized MIT license that require paying above a certain market cap or something. An anti-sassfiy license too. That's what AGPL is used for currently but it focuses on contribution and openness rather than monetization. Many of new database projects and infrastructure tools come up with their own licenses to protect themselves from such problems. A standardized approach would work better…

Beware: the approach you describe qualifies as neither "open source" nor "free software". It might be worthwhile to develop such licenses and experiment with this distribution model - but please call it something else, like "source available" or "fair source".

I am aware. The problem is many companies won't contribute to open source with code but might pay up if they have no choice. Why can't monetary compensation be counted as contribution?

The core point of OSS is freedom to the users, not big companies. MIT provide more freedom to users than AGPL and so does money by empowering contributors to keep working on it. I think there is a case that this should be open source.

Re: The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

#40

Post by amadeuspagel »

> Ask yourself: why is documentation of internal-facing decisions like what software licenses to use being published in a public place? The answer is straightforward: to influence the public. This is propaganda.

Or maybe it's just something that many people have asked about? And why wouldn't they publish it?

Post reply on HN