Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

grafana.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 578 posts

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

#251

Post by pritambaral »

akulkarni wrote: post #73
jchw wrote: 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.

> _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality.

Heads up: calling out the virality of copyleft licenses as a "restriction" is a common tactic used by the anti-FOSS brigade — this includes the likes of Microsoft under Steve Ballmer that famously called the GPL "a cancer". So it seems like you're re-using old FUD tactics, even if you don't intend to.

Putting that aside, what you claim also happens to be an established point of argument that has been already heavily debated upon in the FLOSS community, specifically by the permissive licenses' side; and they actually have some truth to the claim. Your claim, instead, is nowhere near as strong as theirs.

Permissive licenses take away virality, sure, but add little-to-no restrictions of their own. Your license, OTOH:

1. Doesn't take away nearly as much virality — Derivative Works of code under the TSL are still subject to the TSL; and

2. Adds its own set of restrictions — quite a few of them, actually.

----

If your argument was that you "designed the Timescale License to be less restrictive than AGPL _specifically on the question of virality_", you'd be right. Because the TSL also adds a bunch of restrictions, your original claim does not quite stand up.

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

#252

Post by gpanders »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #66
188201 wrote: 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…

> Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code. That's not true, you do have to release the code. There is no difference between statically or dynamically linking to a GPL library. Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic You may be thinking of the LGPL.

Not everyone agrees on this point [1]. One relevant quote: "This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works."

Whether or not dynamic linking constitutes a "derived" work is still an open question, legally speaking. Obviously the FSF has their own thoughts on this, but it's unclear how an actual court would rule.

(IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc. etc.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...

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

#253

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

soenkeliebau wrote: post #243
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #24

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…

>Yes; if you're going to do this, then using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license. I'm not sure I agree. Yes, standardization is a good thing and AGPL is the "known evil", but having read it I do think that it is a very very complex piece of text - personally I'd go so far as to say that it is close to incomprehensible and would prefer pretty much anything else. But even aside from that the sheer nu…

The question is whether the alternatives are any better; IMO, this is unlikely (all the others I've seen make tradeoffs that I'd consider poor, personally).

I think the virality and companies not liking it is the license working as intended, honestly; it's supposed to be viral, that's the point of copyleft, and obviously companies take issue with that (although I agree that some of this might be misunderstanding scope / what it infects), but that's not a bug, it's the license doing its job and companies making decisions based on that.

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

#254

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

swyx wrote: post #95
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #24

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…

> using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license license noob here - can you elaborate on why exactly it is so much better?

I don't care so much about the AGPL specifically, but it's a single known license, rather than every time I find a new project having to find out what "interesting" license they cooked up this time.

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

#255

Post by gpanders »

raegis wrote: post #135
jchw wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While many are dismissing your concerns, I do think this is a valid point, at least to some degree. For example, Google institutes a blanket ban on all AGPL code: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ Now, one can read into why exactly this may be, though I have a strong feeling it is simply due to the fact that enforcing correct use of the license is harder than usual. Even if you use it alongside only c…

I suspect this is not a popular opinion, but Google's AGPL policy reads like FUD to me. From the first paragraph: "...extremely difficult for Google to comply with..." and "...presents a huge risk to Google..." and later in the document is the best part: "This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code...". All from a company which built itself on GPL software. This reminds me of Steve Ballmer…

It is absolutely FUD.

https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

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

#256

Post by w4rh4wk5 »

janoc wrote: post #236
w4rh4wk5 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a client has no direct access to the Postgres server, I'd say you neither need to publish your changes to Postgres, nor put the web application under AGPL. Just because your web application uses Postgres as a storage for data, in a way it could also just use SQLite or MariaDB instead, does not make it a "derivative work". #notalawyer

And you don't read what he wrote: "... and I modify it to my needs ..." So he has explicitly created derivative work of Postgres, that's not the question at all. The question is whether the conditions of the AGPL for distributing the source would trigger in his case. I would say yes but IANAL.

Just because I create a derivative work of an (A)GPL project does not immediately require me to publish those changes. Only if I distribute the work, I also need to distribute the changes along with it.

While a derivative work of Postgres is created, it is not "distributed" (in the sense of the AGPL). The web application is, which I do not consider a derivative work of Postgres in the general case.

If you implement a feature in Postgres and have a web application that is practically just a wrapper around this one, new feature, then that could be considered a derivative work. But I'd say that's a far stretch.

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

#257

Post by cevian »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #193
mfreed wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi PeterisP, just to avoid any confusion: The sentence you quote is actually meant to -technically- establish a basis for what it means for somebody to run/offer TimescaleDB as part of a value added service (very much allowed) versus a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). There are many, many thousands of companies that use or embed TimescaleDB as part of their service or pr…

> a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). That restriction makes the license not Open Source. Open Source licenses MUST allow anyone to run the software, for any reason, by definition. Even "as-a-Service". It's a perfectly fine restriction to have, but it shouldn't be called an Open Source license.

And we never call it Open Source!

(Timescale engineer here)

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

#258

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

api wrote: post #104
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #24

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…

Anything not hard-copyleft (GPL, AGPL) or source-available (BSL etc.) is going to be embraced, extended, and SaaSified / paywalled. Eventually the open version might get abandoned since its authors will get tired of providing free labor to billion dollar cloud companies. I don't think you'll see a lot of major projects under super-liberal licenses in the future. You will see such licenses for libraries and other comp…

> Anything not hard-copyleft (GPL, AGPL) or source-available (BSL etc.) is going to be embraced, extended, and SaaSified / paywalled. Eventually the open version might get abandoned since its authors will get tired of providing free labor to billion dollar cloud companies.

FreeBSD is 27 years old. Postgres is 24 years old. SQLite, which is placed in the public domain, is 20 years old.

You will forgive me not holding my breath.

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

#259

Post by tshaddox »

nopzor wrote: post #192
judofyr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables. […] It's a very measured and thoughtful way to ensure the long term progress and continuity of these projects. Ahem: Grafana Labs Brings In $50M Series B For Open-Source Developer Platform: https://news.crunchbase.com/news/grafana-labs-brings-in-50m-... I compl…

do you think that earning money or having a viable business model is a bad thing? look at our actions since the inception of the company, as well as our "big tent" philosophy; i think they speak for ourselves. we built a sustainable business over the course of 4 years, prior to raising a dollar of VC money. we raised VC money to go even faster. most of our VC money goes to paying our employees. most of our employees…

> do you think that earning money or having a viable business model is a bad thing?

Nope, but I kinda thought the whole idea behind open source is that no one company or group of companies/licensees gets privileged access to or control over the software, including any company that happens to have the same name as the piece of software.

I realize that “open source” and “free software” and other related labels mean many things to many people, and some people have very strong opinions about what does and doesn’t qualify, so I’m not trying to be prescriptive about what these terms “really” mean, but to me this is a pretty important almost self-evident part of it. If you want to sell proprietary software just do that!

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

#260

Post by gpanders »

zokier wrote: post #244
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #185

When we released our server product under GNU AGPL v3 license, we have received a rather negative reaction from other participants in our field. The general sentiment was, "this license makes a useless curiosity". I wonder where does this hostility come from. Jealosy? FUD? Frustration that they can't take the source and not share own improvements??

The problem I have with AGPL is that you need to think about it, even if you just run the software and are not distributing it. Or rather AGPL forces you to distribute the software you run. This is in stark contrast to all other mainstream licenses where in general you don't need to think about the license at all if you are not distributing the software, which makes very worry free experience.

> Or rather AGPL forces you to distribute the software you run.

No it does not. Using AGPL software does not suddenly make your own software a derived work.

Post reply on HN