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

51–60 of 341 posts

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

#51

Post by ddevault »

searchableguy wrote: post #39
ddevault wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Monetary contribution certainly can be considered contribution. But FOSS is not about "contribution" at all.

Big companies are users, too.

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

#52

Post by ddevault »

oefrha wrote: post #48
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…

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.

[citation needed]

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

#53

Post by hpfr »

woofie11 wrote: post #4

Awesome article! I was in an organization which had an AGPL ban. After a couple of months with lawyers, it's now a major AGPL supporter. AGPL lets you build ecosystems around your software, where everyone contributes, and no one can parasitically compete with you. It's absolutely the right tool for a lot of uses. I'm no longer with the organization, but it had: * Hundreds of open-source contributors * Millions of use…

Anyone have guesses to the organization here, since they’re pointedly not mentioning it? I find that a bit confusing since their code is probably publicly available under the AGPL, which is really all this comment discusses.

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

#54

Post by dathinab »

an_opabinia wrote: post #38
cic48 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly I'm not a big fan of using *GPLvX and I didn't even know what Google was thinking about it.

It's more about the bothersome of the question what the actual legal implications are.

I would love if such licenses ship with a long list of positive and negative examples which if they exactly fit you overrule any interpretation of the rest of the contract...

EDIT: To clarify my opinion in this context is about cases where the AGPL is in something like a library position. AGPL on software which is used as a service seems to be quite reasonable without much legal surprises.

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

#55

Post by rbanffy »

apetresc wrote: post #14
lxe wrote: post #5

> Any derivative works of AGPL-licensed software must also use the AGPL. TBH, I'm interpreting this statement just like Google is: > 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. What's the definition of 'derivative work' here?

A derivative work of PostGIS would be a fork or patches to PostGIS (i.e, a set database extensions for geographic/spatial queries). A mapping application that used PostGIS is not a derivative work of PostGIS, in the same way that a C program linked against glibc is not a derivative work of glibc. At least, that's my layperson's understanding of it.

A program using PostGIS via TCP is no more a derivative work of PostGIS than a program storing data in its underlying database is derived from PostgreSQL.

I can't imagine the tortuous logic one would need to arrive at a different conclusion.

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

#56

Post by woofie11 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #28
woofie11 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL software isn't designed to be used as a dependency to a proprietary system. It's designed to be used in an open ecosystem. That's kind of the point. * If you expect your code to be used as a dependency to a proprietary system, don't use the AGPL. * If you are building a stand-alone system, or tools for an open ecosystem, use the AGPL. That's a question of suitability-to-purpose. Although this use is permitted, A…

I agree with what you're saying, but it contradicts the source article, which insists that Google is spreading FUD by saying it can't use AGPL dependencies in its proprietary systems.

Yeah, it's complex:

* The article is right that Google IS spreading FUD. They're making legal statements which are probably false to minimize usage of the AGPL outside of Google.

* Google came to a sensible conclusion, that THEY shouldn't use the AGPL

* Google's articulated reasons don't hold legal water, and following Google's lead and interpretation causes many companies to mislicense their code

It's a right tool for the right job kind of thing, and AGPL is not the right tool for Google's job.

I've used all sorts of license in projects I've worked on. It's always a pragmatic evaluation. Right now, I'm working on a project which, pending legal review, should be AGPL. Any other license would be business suicide. AGPL gets us the ecosystem we'll need, without having to unfairly compete with our own code.

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

#57

Post by cic48 »

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…

Perhaps people would listen more readily if you didn’t ascribe malevolent falsehoods to routine risk management and identified any idea other than your own as intellectually deficient. There are reasons and advantages to monorepos in some circumstances that you haven’t considered, for example, because you haven’t been exposed to them. Binary dumb/not dumb across the board is a junior engineer argument, and you’re better than that.

I’ve followed you for a while, Drew, and it’s a recurring theme. Respectfully, you could stand to listen from time to time. This is one of those times.

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

#58

Post by jcheng »

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 agree that random engineers should have the humility to listen to feedback from lawyers. And IANAL.

Here's the sentence with "scripts to control":

> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

That being said, it feels like a stretch to me that the particular orchestration infrastructure your company uses could be considered part of this. Borg is clearly not "needed to... run the object code and to modify the work" (PostGIS), which you could easily demonstrate by running and modifying PostGIS without Borg--as every other user of PostGIS does.

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

#59

Post by p0llard »

> 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 makes anyone who uses the the software via the Internet entitled to its source code.

I don't really follow this.

The fact that the linking exception and the LGPL exist at all is enough to infer that the FSF/license authors consider linking against or otherwise using a piece of software as a component of a larger system is enough to make that larger system a derivative work of the smaller component, thus "tainting" (I use this work non-disparagingly) it with the copyleft provisions of the license.

If Google Maps (that is the suite of software running on Google's servers) uses PostGIS as its data store then it seems that without a judicial ruling on whether there's a legal difference between interfacing with a software component by linking against it and interfacing with a software component by using some other software interface, it's not possible to be so certain that there isn't an issue here.

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

#60

Post by knorker »

> Obligatory: I’m not a lawyer; this is for informational purposes only

That's the main point, though. You aren't, in fact, a lawyer. And this is not, in fact legal advice. You are presumably expert in a non-legal field, and you are giving expert opinion on something you are not an expert on.

The GPL is tested. The LGPL less so, but lawyers seem to be more comfortable with it.

There's the extra complexity that Google compiles its binaries statically.

You're calling Google liars. There's an alternative interpretation of events where a whole legal department, with great lawyers, and backed by great engineers to clarify the technical aspects for the lawyers, come to a different conclusion than yours.

And you just dismiss that as lies. I don't think that's fair at all. You wouldn't want a lawyer to come and say "bah, you should just make that inherently NP problem complete fast for all inputs. How hard could it be? If you say it's hard then you're lying.".

> this is for informational purposes only

This is pretty arrogant. "I'm not a lawyer, but here are the real legal facts to ACTUALLY educate you".

You should say it's "for speculation purposes only", or "for entertainment purposes only".

> Don’t be afraid to use the AGPL, and don’t be afraid to use software which uses the AGPL.

This is ignoring one big problem though. Agree or not, call them liars or not, but Google and it's employees will NOT touch your software. Not only will you not get Google as users (though if you dual-license yes in fact Google DOES buy software, if they can buy it as non-AGPL), you will not get Google employees as contributors.

Post reply on HN