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

391–400 of 578 posts

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

#391

Post by crazypython »

jrv wrote: post #183
josephcsible wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the ideal end-state from a software freedom perspective is that all software becomes AGPL. This change is a step in that direction, not only with the directly affected products, but for the reasons you mentioned, an additional pressure for more things to switch to it. Do you not like that end goal, or do you just think the side effects of the change outweigh the benefits of getting closer to it?

I think it's both a completely unrealistic end goal (we live in the real world), and I also think that the AGPL puts you into a hole where you can never get out of again if you decided that you now need different constraints. So I really much more prefer permissive licenses. Funnily just before you wrote this comment, I also tweeted just that :) : https://twitter.com/juliusvolz/status/1384599249082626052

> if you decided that you now need different constraints.

AGPL can be linked against GPL.

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

#392

Post by josephcsible »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #378
josephcsible wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one particular group of people I assume you mean the OSI. But it's not just them with a problem with the SSPL. Debian and Fedora both reject it too, independently, for being non-free.

But it is free. It solely conveys an expectation that you also release related tooling for free as well. If it's not a free license, the AGPL isn't either.

What's your definition of "free"? Because it's certainly not the same as the FSF's.

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

#393

Post by zmmmmm »

watermelon0 wrote: post #147
blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

I have a question regarding AGPL, that I couldn't answer by Googling or reading the license. Let's say that Postgres server is licensed under AGPL, and I modify it to my needs. I have a closed source web application, that is publicly accessible, and uses Postgres for storing data. a) Do I need to publish source code of my version of Postgres? b) Does my application (which relies on Postgres, and my patches) need to a…

I'm going to split hairs the other answers don't: you specify you have modified Postgres. My answer is, it entirely depends if your application is considered a "derivative work" of Postgres. This hinges on a couple of things:

- does your application directly include AGPL postgres code in any form (headers, binary, etc etc) to its own source or its own runtime process?

- keep in mind, in answering the above, that your application probably does have to include a postgresql driver of some kind. Is the driver licensed AGPL too? If yes, your answer to the above is probably yes. This was the problem for years with MySQL, because they licensed their driver code GPL along with the actual database code.

- a final consideration that only comes into play if there is genuine ambiguity on the other points: is your application able to perform its functions if Postgresql is missing or swapped out for another database? To the extent it depends on Postgresql functionality, this will sway a jury towards considering it is in fact a derivative work of Postresql. If you on the other hand support 6 different databases and Postgresql is just one of them - it will be much less likely your application is considered a derivative work of it. As I said, this only comes into play if the other factors can't be decided decisively.

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

#394

Post by ternaryoperator »

sneak wrote: post #372
ternaryoperator wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Companies are right to avoid the AGPL" This was never an issue until Google was pinched on it five or six years ago and started a massive campaign to get the OSS movement to disfavor the AGPL. Google uses tons of GPL software that they don't pay for (Linux, Java, etc.) but once it became exterior-facing and the license applied to their software, then rather than pay to license the software, the world's fifth most va…

> Google uses tons of GPL software that they don't pay for (Linux, Java, etc.) but once it became exterior-facing and the license applied to their software, then rather than pay to license the software, the world's fifth most valuable company decided they'd rather stiff the developers by a campaign to convince other companies of what you just posted. The free in free software is often cited as being "free as in freed…

Why do I have to pick one? It's not a binary thing. Why can't developers say it's free to use under these circumstances, but not under others? Isn't that precisely the freedom you are otherwise championing?

The only reason Google opposes the AGPL is financial. Read their explanations. So, while you're right that Google is not 'stiffing' the developers whose software they're using, by their campaign against the one license that can be used by developers to make money, they are making the OSS world weaker--especially for programmers from developing countries who don't have the luxury of large blocks of time to write software on the side unless they can benefit from a license like the AGPL.

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

#395

Post by zmmmmm »

gpanders wrote: post #252
rhaps0dy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]: h…

That may be true, but a state of ambiguity is as good as saying its covered by GPL ... no organisation is going to look at that and say "that's fine, let's use it".

In fact, state of ambiguity is the worst for everyone because neither will users be able assume they can exercise their free software rights. So everyone loses.

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

#396

Post by Dylan16807 »

btown wrote: post #78
Rapzid wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that would require the developer to maintain a source repository for Loki under the AGPL.

Is that a problem? Fork it on github, and update the repository every once in a while or upon request.

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

#397

Post by chx »

clusterfish wrote: post #346
josephcsible wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the substance of what you said, but I'm going to nitpick a bit of wording: what you call "developer freedom" isn't freedom at all, and is more rightly called power. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

That seems like splitting hairs for ideological gain. You might as well describe freedom of movement as power to take someone else's job in another town, or freedom of speech as power to manipulate masses, or freedom to do an abortion as power over the unborn child. Which way the issues are framed says more about the author than the issue. Software has leverage (one developer, many users at low marginal cost) built-i…

> or freedom to do an abortion as power over the unborn child.

this is nonsensical propaganda. There's no such thing as "an unborn child". Next you will subscribe to Roko's basilisk. Or what about criminalizing going a month without attempting to procreate, after all, an egg has the potential to become a child. Sure, smaller chance than a fertilized egg but hey are we going to draw the criminal lines based on probabilities? Nope, we just refuse this framing -- it masquerades as "think of the children" but as all those laws, it's actually harmful as the right framing here is about the control of the bodies of women.

We now push back at every possible occurrence of this and other nonsensical Republican bllsht. The time for debate ended on January 6. It was not me who ended it. Now it's just pushing back and out.

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

#398

Post by Proven »

> For distributors, AGPL has the same source code sharing requirements as GPL. Those conditions are designed to encourage third parties looking to modify the software to also contribute back to the project and the community.

Like the government "encourages" me to wear seat belts and pay taxes.

License your stuff however you want, but don't sugar-coat it in nonsense PR terms.

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

#399

Post by gen220 »

gqewogpdqa wrote: post #334
gen220 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yeah! We totally agree! I was finding it hard to respond to your comment initially because I didn’t know which point you were trying to make, mentioning Android and K8s. I totally agree that the “we are now AGPL” route is preferable. FWIW MongoDB was already AGPL, but that wasn’t enough for them I guess, they wanted more money. Old HN thread on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18229452

Why the toxicity? AGPL was deemed by many to not be clear about what it was trying to accomplish. As I read in the various exchanges and articles around the time SSPL came out, I think they were just trying to clarify AGPL, not getting any more restrictive than AGPLs intent. And how would moving from a license that said you couldn't run a service bureau for free to something that says more clearly that you can't run…

Sorry you’re right, I was being petty. I’ll explain my perspective in hope that we can learn something from this, but being flippant like that wasn’t justifiable. That’s a lesson in itself! :)

From my perspective, MongoDB (the company) “wins” by getting more people to purchase their product, and making MongoDB (the software) better is only one of the many possible dimensions to optimize in pursuit of this goal. When I see a license change by such a company, my null hypothesis is that somebody realized the marginal cost of changing their license would capture enough value (even if a smaller pie) to offset any potential harm to the community, brand, etc. It’s perhaps too cynical a view, and I’m open to learning otherwise.

I do agree that the AGPL is a mess, and there seems to be a consensus around this fact. It isn’t the correct license for a VC-backed firm trying to SaaSify a FOSS project, which is what MongoDB learned. And since SaaS is ostensibly its target audience, AGPL doesn’t come away looking great.

More broadly, I’m concerned for the developer productivity that’s wasted (from a humanity/society POV) in the corporate-driven pursuit of defensible and sellable intellectual property. Nothing wrong with making money, but I think it’s a tragedy that capital assets aren’t broken down, recycled and repurposed in the software world like they were in the industrial world.

From this angle, I view the GPL as a positive influence towards making our work less repetitive and more reusable. It makes me sad to see MongoDB move away from any GPL-based license, even when it’s in their shareholders’ best interest, because it means all the dev hours invested into MongoDB post-2018 likely will have been invested in vain.

But maybe I’m wrong and their new license means their software is still salvageable for the future, when MongoDB (the company) no longer exists! I’d love for that to be the case.

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

#400

Post by Proven »

Seirdy wrote: post #222
jrv wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is also that a lot of more permissively licensed (BSD / Apache) projects now cannot use (most) parts of Grafana / Loki / Tempo anymore, since realistically they won't be able to or want to switch to the AGPL as well (because of all the pain that would incur on others, in turn). That means that basically the whole free code sharing idea goes out of the window, at least in on…

That's kind of the point. The purpose of MIT/BSD is to enable nonfree derivative works; the purpose of the AGPL is to only allow free derivatives. AGPL maximizes freedom by prohibiting further restriction of it; it's a local maxima of "user freedom" as a function of "developer freedom". If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL.

> AGPL maximizes freedom by prohibiting further restriction of it

I've never heard such a nonsense justification for restricting freedoms. You can't even prove or possibly know if the MIT/BSD licensed source code used isn't shared with downstream users. Second, thinking that you're entitled to define freedom for your users says a lot about the value of this freedom (it's worthless).

> If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL.

No. You're free to use AGPL software, but in turn you are forced to relicense it under the same license.

Post reply on HN