Why we picked AGPL
blog.paradedb.com
Why we picked AGPL
1–10 of 312 posts
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#2> Elasticsearch alternative built on Postgres
Without horizontal scaling it's more like a hosted/queryable Lucene.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#3Every so often I run through the common set of licenses to double-check which one I want to personally use for my projects (both commercial and for fun), and I always end up back at AGPL. For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#4> The AGPL license permits free use, modification, and distribution of software, provided that distributed, derivative works of the software are released under the same license.
Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use.
The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use. (With regard to use, they have only certain liability disclaimer clauses.)
The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#5> The AGPL license permits free use, modification, and distribution of software, provided that distributed, derivative works of the software are released under the same license. Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use. The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use. (With regard to use, they have only certain liability…
Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service.
It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a more narrow way.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#6> The AGPL license permits free use, modification, and distribution of software, provided that distributed, derivative works of the software are released under the same license. Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use. The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use. (With regard to use, they have only certain liability…
Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service. It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a…
Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use.
The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program.
The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program.
This is no different from Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, ... identifying people using their software in ways they don't like, and crafting their EULA terms to turn those activities into a license violation.
A free software license simply cannot dictate uses, like where and how you run the program, and who can access it from where.
A free software license can only use copyright law, and only be concerned with copying.
EULAs go beyond coypright; they try to connect non-copying activities to copyright by the doctrine that if the user engages in the forbidden activities, their license is terminated (and thus it becomes copyright infringement for them to continue to have a now unlicensed copy of the software).
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service. It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a…
Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…
I'm still not following - you're talking about restrictions on use, but what restrictions on use does AGPL apply? What can I not do with AGPL software? What are the forbidden activities you reference?
The only caveat seems to be making the source code available to users of the software, which is also the case with GPLv2, just under narrower conditions.
I have no dog in this race, nor any particular attachment to any particular license, I'm just trying to better understand what these restrictions are that you're referencing.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service. It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a…
Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…
> Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use.
Hard disagree. You're redistributing the software in a manner for people to easily use it.
If you rip a movie you own, there's no distinction that I'm aware of in copyright law between hosting the .ISO on an FTP server and hosting the .MKV as a stream. They're both redistributing, it's just that one is designed for ephemeral consumption.
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…
> Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. Hard disagree. You're redistributing the software in a manner for people to easily use it. If you rip a movie you own, there's no distinction that I'm aware of in copyright law between hosting the .ISO on an FTP server and hosting the .MKV as a stream. They're both redistributing, it's just that one is designed for ephemeral consumption.
That's broadcasting. The recipient of a stream can capture the film to create their own .MKV they can further stream or pass on.
Equating the running of a program with broadcasting is the kind of sophistry we might expect from Apple or Adobe or Oracle or their ilk.
Certain portions of a service program may be broadcast, like for instance certain string literals carrying text that appears at the remote end point. The bulk of the software is not transmitted. It transmits and receives messages, which are mostly not that program. The remote end cannot recover a copy of the program from these messages. Some bits of literal data, but none of the code. (There are obvious exceptions, like programs transmitted to web browsers for local execution.)
Re: Why we picked AGPL
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…
I'm still not following - you're talking about restrictions on use, but what restrictions on use does AGPL apply? What can I not do with AGPL software? What are the forbidden activities you reference? The only caveat seems to be making the source code available to users of the software, which is also the case with GPLv2, just under narrower conditions. I have no dog in this race, nor any particular attachment to any…
> which is also the case with GPLv2
No it isn't; under the GPLv2, the source code must be available to those to whom compiled code has been redistributed. Whether they are users doesn't matter.
The restrictions are that if you violate the license, your use of the program is infringing.
> What can I not do with AGPL software?
You cannot change it and run it yourself, without hosting the source code.
You cannot combine an AGPL program with proprietary code and operate it, because you cannot release the proprietary code.