121–130 of 341 posts
I use the Open Software License for this same reason, I dont think companies should be able to get the benefit of open source libraries with the cost of publishing any modifications, regardless if its a webapp or desktop app. I am curious the difference though:
https://choosealicense.com/appendix
seems to only be different with regard to trademarks?
> 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…
- We want to encourage people and organizations to use the software as a data processing & protection tool, just like they use other Linux/Unix tools.
- Using the software does not require integrating it into a software project as a library (though you can do that).
- We want to ensure that any extensions and modifications of the software (e.g. new anonymization or pseudonymization methods that people would implement) will make it back into the main software as open-source, so that everyone can benefit from them.
- We want to keep potential competitors from being able to just resell our software as a SaaS offering or integrate it into a commercial, closed-source product.
For me, the AGPL fits this bill quite nicely, and that it deters organizations to use the software for free in their closed-source projects is actually a bonus. We offer dual-licensing by the way, so organizations can just buy a commercial license if they want to integrate our tool into their closed-source software. That at least should allow us to refuse such a license to a potential competitor and the funding we (hopefully) will generate via the commercial licenses will help us fund the development for everyone. Win win.
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…
The AGPL virality is considered such a big risk, and the "scripts to control" clause is considered so sweeping and vague, that Google has its own internal version of R that won't download AGPL libraries from CRAN, because just looking looking at the performance stats from production services in R using an AGPL library could taint the source code of the service itself. Nobody knows.
> 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 seen the same phobia to a lesser degree around the plain old GPL. Lawyers think, and not unreasonably, in terms of risk. Is there a risk you might be dragged into court? If so, that's a very expensive risk. Is the library or application worth this risk? If not, then ditch it. It's not an unreasonable fear either given past events like the SCO/Linux lawsuit. IBM had deep enough pockets to fight it and win. Anyone…
Oh dear, your company's lawyers are afraid of the AGPL? Well then pay the project for a commercial license.
> 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 seen the same phobia to a lesser degree around the plain old GPL. Lawyers think, and not unreasonably, in terms of risk. Is there a risk you might be dragged into court? If so, that's a very expensive risk. Is the library or application worth this risk? If not, then ditch it. It's not an unreasonable fear either given past events like the SCO/Linux lawsuit. IBM had deep enough pockets to fight it and win. Anyone…
Even SQLite, which is public domain, offers a commercial "warranty of title" [1] if your company requires a guarantee that there can't be a lawsuit regarding the use of this software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the same phobia to a lesser degree around the plain old GPL. Lawyers think, and not unreasonably, in terms of risk. Is there a risk you might be dragged into court? If so, that's a very expensive risk. Is the library or application worth this risk? If not, then ditch it. It's not an unreasonable fear either given past events like the SCO/Linux lawsuit. IBM had deep enough pockets to fight it and win. Anyone…
But isn't the middle ground requiring copyright assignment and then dual licensing? Oh dear, your company's lawyers are afraid of the AGPL? Well then pay the project for a commercial license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because just looking looking at the performance stats from production services in R using an AGPL library could taint the source code of the service itself I think this is what is being referred to as "FUD". Anyone can go after you for some sort of supposed license issue, but at some point you need to consider that many of these are extremely far-fetched and serve only to quite literally add FUD around AGPL.
The error is using a pejorative term of FUD to identify uncertainties that are routine in every legal review ever performed. What you’re saying is you have a different risk assessment for your business and you’d take the advice and proceed anyway. That’s your prerogative. That does not extend to “different assessments from my own are objectively wrong,” which is what calling them FUD implies. Engineers seek hard trut…
> Any users of such software are entitled to the source code under the terms of the AGPL, including users accessing it over the network such as with their web browser or via an API or internet protocol That doesn't seem to be quite right. It makes it sound like the source code entitlement applies to all users. The "including users accessing it over the network" is redundant then because they are a subset of all users…
The AGPL is written in the context of the gpl, where user is someone who runs the software. The AGPL extends this to someone who uses the software over the network.
You're right that that kind of means "all users" - but let's take the example of a GPS appliance - if you buy the device, and run software on in, you're a "gpl user". If the appliance is a server that runs a web application - the person operating the appliance is a "gpl user", the one interacting with it via the web is not - but they are an "AGPL user". If you relay directions to someone (say as a passenger/navigator in a car) - you could argue the driver also "uses" the software - but only the passenger would be considered an "AGPL user".
All this must be seen in light of the four freedoms, and who it applies to (who is a user).
The AGPL extends freedom zero (the freedom to run the software) - to those accessing it over the network - in short, it grants the right to self-host and run the code.