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

41–50 of 341 posts

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

#41

Post by objclxt »

ddevault wrote: post #24
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…

>This is the problem: I've fought with IP lawyers we've had on retainer who always boil it down to: "It doesn't matter. We're not going to court to find out." This is incredibly stupid. By this logic your business can't do literally anything . The AGPL simply does not do what Google states it does, and a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. A more realistic explanation for why Google…

> a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact.

But that reading has never been tested in court, so from counsel’s perspective why risk it?

No competent lawyer would take the AGPL at prima facie, they’re going to look for case law - and there isn’t any.

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

#42

Post by dathinab »

My problem with GPL is that the term "derived" is defined to vague or not in the way I like it, which in turn opens up all kind of legal uncertainty.

(I don't know if this also applies for AGPL.)

I would love to hear that AGPL legal reliably works like he describes (or there is a different license which does).

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

#43

Post by woofie11 »

marcinzm wrote: post #17

> 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 linking which creates a derivative work, as Google implies, but rather that it mak…

Eben Moglen wrote the AGPL. There's a standard process courts use to figure this stuff out. Intent fits into it. Eben Moglen clearly states what he meant in many talks. Courts favor intended interpretation of a contract. That makes the risk pretty small.

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

#44

Post by rydre »

q3k wrote: post #29
rydre wrote: post #22

If you use GPL or a variant (i.e: AGPL) I'm just going to create an MIT version of your product and give it away for free (if it does not give me direct commercial benefit but is a part/component/library used in our product). If you're working on free software make it free. Otherwise if you want to offer source, ask people to buy the source without licensing the redistribution rights. No jumping though silly hoops of…

Where's that MIT version of Linux you've been working on?

> Linux

It's called OpenBSD.

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

#45

Post by foobiekr »

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…

I have had the same experience and the same feedback.

It’s much, much, much worse in the embedded world. I think the author is being quite disingenuous on his take.

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

#46

Post by tylerhou »

ddevault wrote: post #24
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…

>This is the problem: I've fought with IP lawyers we've had on retainer who always boil it down to: "It doesn't matter. We're not going to court to find out." This is incredibly stupid. By this logic your business can't do literally anything . The AGPL simply does not do what Google states it does, and a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. A more realistic explanation for why Google…

> a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact.

Not trying to be rude, but are you a lawyer? To interpret such a license with potentially huge legal ramifications, I would rather listen to lawyers than laypeople.

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

#47

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

I think the author is misreading Google's policy (https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/). They're not saying that communications over the internet constitute a linkage, they're saying that:

* Because of free and open development practices within Google, it's impractical for developers to be constantly aware of what libraries get linked into their binaries. (This is exacerbated because of their monorepo, but even in a multi-repo setup it's very easy to end up with random libraries in your dependency chain.)

* If an AGPL library did end up linked, because all Google's services are accessible through a remote network, the virality provisions kick in and they might have a legal duty to distribute the entire binary.

* Therefore, they have to ban AGPL libraries so that no core service developer accidentally depends on one.

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

#48

Post by oefrha »

ddevault wrote: post #24
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…

>This is the problem: I've fought with IP lawyers we've had on retainer who always boil it down to: "It doesn't matter. We're not going to court to find out." This is incredibly stupid. By this logic your business can't do literally anything . The AGPL simply does not do what Google states it does, and a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. A more realistic explanation for why Google…

If your basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms something that multiple IP lawyers independently found dubious, and you're not a lawyer, I'd rather trust the lawyers, thanks.

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

#49

Post by ddevault »

objclxt wrote: post #41
ddevault wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the problem: I've fought with IP lawyers we've had on retainer who always boil it down to: "It doesn't matter. We're not going to court to find out." This is incredibly stupid. By this logic your business can't do literally anything . The AGPL simply does not do what Google states it does, and a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. A more realistic explanation for why Google…

> a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. But that reading has never been tested in court, so from counsel’s perspective why risk it? No competent lawyer would take the AGPL at prima facie, they’re going to look for case law - and there isn’t any.

Why risk anything? On the grand scale of things, effectively nothing has been tested in court. This is no grounds for making baseless statements about a license which are unsupported by its text.

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

#50

Post by brutt »

rydre wrote: post #44
q3k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's that MIT version of Linux you've been working on?

> Linux It's called OpenBSD.

MacOS uses BSD code for free. Apple, most profitable company in the world, contributes nothing back. Sad story.
Post reply on HN