The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

> Consider the values: We link AGPL software and there's an x% chance we have to spend 10 billion dollars in litigation, engineering effort, and fines to keep our stuff closed source. At what value of X do you make this rule?

That X% is at most the same for using proprietary software. AGPL does NOTHING beyond an ADDITIONAL license grant beyond that. You can pretend AGPL code was Copyright (c) All Rights Reserved. Google ought to ban all software not written in-house under that argument.

In practice, since you've set the bar at $10 billion, that X% is 0%. There is no AGPL software in existence where damages would go over a few million dollars. If you're gonna swing around paranoid conspiracy theories with 10 billion dollar numbers, as you seem prone to, you should build all your data centers underground in case aliens form Mars attack. At what X% does that stop making sense? You're risking a TRILLION dollar business.

> Punitive damages exist. They're a thing. Why are you pretending that they aren't?

You're clearly not a lawyer here. You're confusing copyright law, normal business law, and tort law. Can you please name a realistic scenario where Google might be at risk for punitive damages under the AGPL?

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1983925714f2d2111873

In a worst-case, if the copyright violation is intentional, which is astronomically unlikely, you'd be looking at treble damages. Which goes from peanuts to 3x peanuts.

re: last comment. I apologize I accused Google about lying. Never confuse malice for stupidity. It's very possible Google is just being grossly idiotic. I still have vague memories of the old Google which used to hire smart people, so perhaps I just overestimated the company.....

> Can you explain to me how I'd import proprietary software into google's source code repository?

You grab a .dll file with a library you like, or a .so, and you commit it into git. Voila! This happens all the time.

> The concern is about source code under the AGPL.

No, the concern is about AGPL programs in general touching anything Googly. Google has batshit crazy text like this: "Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office." If you run an AGPL drawing program, you've broken Google policy.

> While I was incorrect about punitive damages, you're also incorrect about "profit" as damages, it's not the lost profit of the infringed, but the illegitimate profit of the infringer. So the potential loss isn't the cost of a negotiated license, but the total profit of Gmail or Youtube or Ads or all three over the infringing period. Yes, that's potentially billions in copyright claims.

No, you're incorrect about everything so far. I gave a correct explanation of how damages are calculated in this thread:

"1) How much did Google profit from the code? 2) How much did the other party lose?3) Are statutory damages greater? Pick the highest of the three. If it's intentional -- and in this case it isn't -- you triple it. You might toss in legal fees."

Profit isn't "total profit of Gmail or Youtube or Ads or all three over the infringing period." That'd be fuckadumb. Profit is the DIFFERENCE in how much Google made with the AGPL code compared to if didn't have that code (so loss in profit from a bit less functionality in Gmail/Youtube/Ads, cost of licensing the functionality elsewhere, or cost of developing similar functionality).

Java is core to Android. Ergo, potential damages were high. If Google decided to replace gmail with an AGPL email client, than you're correct. Perhaps if everyone at Google is as dumb as this conversation suggests, you're right, that might happen without a policy like this. In that case, X>0, and this policy makes perfect sense. If your employees can't tie their shoelaces, you need draconian policies to prevent really dumb things from happening. I was assuming a slip-up where a little bit of AGPL code slipped in, though. Not something like that.

The alleged logic behind it doesn't make sense, but I can see why Google wouldn't post "Our employees are idiots, so we won't allow the AGPL. We might shoot ourselves in the face with it if we did. We're installing padded walls too, because our hiring didn't work out, and we don't want the liability if someone runs into the wall repeatedly." Perhaps Google is saving face here.

> You grab a .dll file with a library you like, or a .so, and you commit it into git. Voila! This happens all the time.

This would also violate Google's source code policies. So yes, the policies are remarkably consistent here.

> No, you're incorrect about everything so far. I gave a correct explanation of how damages are calculated in this thread:

Yes, and then you later gave an incorrect (overly limited one)one.

> Profit is the DIFFERENCE in how much Google made with the AGPL code compared to if didn't have that code (so loss in profit from a bit less functionality in Gmail/Youtube/Ads, cost of licensing the functionality elsewhere, or cost of developing similar functionality)

Note I said "potential". I agree that for an accidental temporary misuse, use the value wouldn't be astronomical. But for long term use it would be. As is evidenced by the current Oracle litigation.

But note what this means: Google can't intentionally use any AGPL software in any of its products on purpose, because that opens them up to legitimately huge damages. So there's basically no legitimate business reason to import them. Accidental misuse is also potentially bad, though yes only hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars bad, not billions. But there's no upside. You can't use the software for legitimate business purposes.

So banning it is completely rational, and banning it on the reasons stated is also completely rational, because there is only downside.

Actually I believe you started that they reached a rational policy for irrational reasons.

I've demonstrated that the reasoning is reasonable.

Indeed. It's hard to go back and argue a different interpretation later in court, if the intended interpretation is so clearly stated and defined.