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

71–80 of 341 posts

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

#71

Post by knorker »

jcheng wrote: post #58
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…

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 str…

It's perfectly possible that binaries that google runs on Borg cannot run on a vanilla Linux system.

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

#72

Post by dathinab »

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?

But saying Goole Maps derives from a database extension which stores cordinates is kinda unrealistic.

It's like saying a public transportation company derives from a specific model of trains they use.

Sure the storage system enables Google Maps to work but any storage system with similar functionality would.

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

#73

Post by p0llard »

rbanffy wrote: post #55
apetresc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> PostGIS via TCP

From a legal perspective I'm unaware of any ruling which establishes a difference between components communicating via TCP and components communicating through function calls at the ABI level (e.g. linked libraries); the latter is apparently enough to constitute a derivative work (see the LGPL/Linking Exception). There are obvious technical differences, but it's not clear that they should be treated any differently from a legal perspective.

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

#74

Post by debiandev »

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…

> After a couple of months with lawyers, it's now a major AGPL supporter

I had a similar experience. I took exams on patent and copyright law with IP lawyers as teachers during my degree.

Then I worked in well known tech companies and had the opportunity to attend meetings with lawyers, business people, read contracts, etc. and oh boy!

Misconceptions abound terribly. The average techie overestimates his/her understanding of law and business.

"permissive" licenses are stupidly lenient. Companies never sign similar contracts between each other when exchanging goods or services. Contracts have hundreds of defensive clauses to mitigate risks or ensure fairness.

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

#75

Post by dvt »

tonyg wrote: post #27
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…

Perhaps you're getting downvoted because it's 2020, and your analysis makes zero mention of what some would call the most important group of people involved in any software project: the end users. There's little left to debate - this particular dead horse is well kicked - but your comment omits any sign you're willing to acknowledge the "freedoms for whom?" aspect of the issue.

> Perhaps you're getting downvoted because it's 2020, and your analysis makes zero mention of what some would call the most important group of people involved in any software project: the end users.

This is a fair point. I guess I think the protected class in the context of open source should be the developers -- because they're the ones putting in the actual work. So I'd always favor their freedom over the end users'. Even if the "developer" might be a Fortune 500 company.

Plenty of MIT-sourced projects blew up because Google or Facebook started using them. And, I'm no fan of huge Fortune 500 companies, but let's be fair: they often contribute back.

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

#76

Post by knorker »

pydry wrote: post #69
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…

The holy war could be avoided if Google simply paid authors of AGPL code they wanted to use instead of going on a tirade against the license. I think half the reason it exists is to make it deliberately risky for FAANGs etc. because they're exactly the ones who SHOULD be ponying up to support the open source ecosystem they rely upon.

They do, but it requires the existance of a dual license for that project, which usually requires copyright reassignment was put in place from the project's inception.

The current maintainer can't just sell a copy under non-AGPL if there are other copyright holders (contributors).

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

dathinab wrote: post #54
an_opabinia wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 case…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by dvt »

saagarjha wrote: post #15
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…

> Legally, you don't want to deal with the burden of constantly checking if you're complying with some license that a dependency of a dependency of a dependency is using. If you're not modifying that dependency, you don't need to do anything since your dependencies are handling it. Especially with GPL, since it's likely that your dependency's dependency will make it GPL as well–but you should be doing this anyways, o…

> Then you're just not in agreement with how GPL works. It's meant to be an explicit guard against people taking projects, forking them, and never contributing back.

I'm definitely not in agreement with it, I just don't like that it tries to present itself as some kind of purist "free software" license, but in reality it mandates how code can be released. How is that free? To take a page out of the blog post, it sure sounds like propaganda to me.

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

#79

Post by detaro »

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…

That's fine, everyone knows that many people don't like the (A)GPL. Not sure we need to have that discussion at every mention of it though? (I assume the latter is the source of at least some of the downvotes)

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

#80

Post by cic48 »

knorker wrote: post #71
jcheng wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 str…

It's perfectly possible that binaries that google runs on Borg cannot run on a vanilla Linux system.

Not only possible, it’s a fact. Borg executables make many assumptions about available runtime services and cannot operate in their absence. It’s probably impossible to derive and operate the same artifact Google is running without a complete Google architecture in place and operating, from Chubby on up.

How does one comply with the AGPL in that scenario? “Rearchitect a not stupid way” is probably the answer here, so it’s a nonstarter.

Post reply on HN