Live data from Hacker News

Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

grafana.com

71–80 of 578 posts

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#71
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hopefully over time rather than having everyone choose their own licenses we end up with some form of standardisation. Yes; if you're going to do this, then using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license. > If the core companies maintaining them did not do this they would eventually die and these projects would slowly rot. It sounds like you're suggesting that anything but hard-copyleft is doomed to d…

Postgres looks like the only interesting entry here. K8s and Android have a major corporation backing them, which extracts value from them in its internal operation anyway. They are such products that using them by competition commoditizes said competition. Android on like 95% of phones outside China has very important proprietary parts, making it hardly compatible with a bunch of top-tier apps. BSD OSes don't do exc…

SQLite, Vim/Emacs, Linux, everything in GNU coreutils.

All of the Apache projects (some to more/less an extant than others).

Most programming language implementations (e.g. CPython). Memcached. WireGuard. SQLAlchemy. Web Frameworks like Flask, Django, Rails, on and on.

There are many open source technologies that do not seek to capture the value they create with licensing hijinks.

I don’t think it’s an accident, that the ones that persist across generations are generally not structured as VC-backed firms, who care a great deal more about “value capture” than the average programmer capable of building such foundational systems. Usually “value capture” is correlated with “consumer harm”, and so they’re replaced over time.

From your example, K8s will definitely outlive Google. Hard to say about Android.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#72
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hopefully over time rather than having everyone choose their own licenses we end up with some form of standardisation. Yes; if you're going to do this, then using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license. > If the core companies maintaining them did not do this they would eventually die and these projects would slowly rot. It sounds like you're suggesting that anything but hard-copyleft is doomed to d…

Postgres looks like the only interesting entry here. K8s and Android have a major corporation backing them, which extracts value from them in its internal operation anyway. They are such products that using them by competition commoditizes said competition. Android on like 95% of phones outside China has very important proprietary parts, making it hardly compatible with a bunch of top-tier apps. BSD OSes don't do exc…

Well, OpenSSH for example is an OpenBSD project, so it's not like nobody uses their stuff.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#73
post #7

I don't want to weigh in here with a huge value judgement on whether this is the right decision. However, I do want to say that what they're saying regarding SSPL vs AGPL is totally right. One of the biggest sticking points with SSPL is that it's not even really plausibly open source, and it tries to create restrictions that implicate software that is not even "linked" with the program that is licensed under it, whic…

(Timescale founder)

We actually designed the Timescale License to be _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. It just prevents public clouds from offering TimescaleDB-aaS.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#74
post #61
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's misunderstanding of AGPL. For internal use, AGPL does not require to share the proprietary part. If a company develop an proprietary UI and use Loki as backend, this is not serving Loki directly to customer, so that does not require company to release their code. It is similar to GPL. Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code. Only provider serving Loki insta…

I think this is a misunderstanding of how vague the AGPL actually is. The key clause is "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version." Would putting AGPL software behind a reverse proxy change the fact that you're a user interacting with it r…

Most companies who use Grafana or Loki as part of some deployment would use an unmodified version, so the only AGPL specific clause, which you cite, would not apply and is irrelevant.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#75
post #9

Even though we use Grafana only internally and there would be no problem with AGPLv3 in theory I see big meetings with legal coming up which might result in us not being able to use it anymore. I could image that its the same with other corporations. In the end that might hurt the popularity of Grafana quite a lot.

In a large number of cases, this is not an issue at all. Just like we all use GPL-ed kernel and a ton of other stuff. There is also no problem with making AGPL-based services available to customers. The caveat is that when you modify AGPL-based code, you need to make the source of these modifications available, too. For some reason, this scares Amazon a lot. Developers know that and use AGPL when they don't want to b…

If Amazon was really scared of AGPL then MongoDB wouldn't need to relicense.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#76
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's misunderstanding of AGPL. For internal use, AGPL does not require to share the proprietary part. If a company develop an proprietary UI and use Loki as backend, this is not serving Loki directly to customer, so that does not require company to release their code. It is similar to GPL. Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code. Only provider serving Loki insta…

That does not seem to be the case. From [1] The difference between the AGPL and traditional GPL is simple: The AGPL seeks to close a "loophole" that allows a company or organization to modify GPL'ed software and use it to provide a service — but without actually distributing changes. So a company can take a package like, say, WordPress and modify the software significantly to sell a service — but hold back changes be…

Wasnt this solved with GPLv3 anti tivoization rules?

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#77
post #32

Those who have reservations about the terms of AGPLv3 - would any of you prefer if it was licensed under BUSL1.1 (i.e., source-available or eventually-open-source) instead? I'm curious to see the perspectives of businesses as to whether AGPLv3 or BUSL-1.1 is a "bigger risk" when compared to the previous Apache 2.0 license. My gut feeling is that those passionate about open source on the whole will tend to prefer AGPL…

The BUSL is worse - obscure licenses are problematic.

The problem with the AGPL is it's very unclear what counts as linking, and this has never been tested in court, and that it's not clear what "network access" needs to look like.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#78
post #69
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a misunderstanding of how vague the AGPL actually is. The key clause is "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version." Would putting AGPL software behind a reverse proxy change the fact that you're a user interacting with it r…

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the reverse proxy as it doesn't seem related to anything the parent wrote.

Sure! Saying that the parent’s “develop an proprietary UI and use Loki as backend” is a slippery slope to “user sees data that incorporates data served from Loki” which I am arguing could be interpreted as data that would require the developer to maintain a source repository for Loki under the AGPL.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#79
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not seem to be the case. From [1] The difference between the AGPL and traditional GPL is simple: The AGPL seeks to close a "loophole" that allows a company or organization to modify GPL'ed software and use it to provide a service — but without actually distributing changes. So a company can take a package like, say, WordPress and modify the software significantly to sell a service — but hold back changes be…

Wasnt this solved with GPLv3 anti tivoization rules?

How would the anti-tivoization rule that discusses physical products apply to a service?

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#80
post #9

Even though we use Grafana only internally and there would be no problem with AGPLv3 in theory I see big meetings with legal coming up which might result in us not being able to use it anymore. I could image that its the same with other corporations. In the end that might hurt the popularity of Grafana quite a lot.

Cannot be helped - that's just fear of the unknown. If legal is familiar with AGPL, like they are with GPL, BSD or Apache, they should see no issue. This change does not really affect anyone except for the very small number of people/companies that make their own changes to software and make this software available online to others. If you aren't such a company and legal would still say you guys can't use e.g. Grafan…

Many devs at Google routinely use GPLv3 code, in GNU Emacs, to make an example.

Unless you’re repackaging Grafana into an app bundle for customers to use, there’s no violation occurring here, right?

Post reply on HN