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

Why we picked AGPL

blog.paradedb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#11

Post by randomdata »

sgarland wrote: post #8
kazinator wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

> They're both redistributing

Well, yes. While perhaps some metadata is lost, the content that is worth fighting for is captured in both cases. Practically speaking, there is no difference between the original source, an ISO rip, and an MKV rip. At least to the untrained eye, they are in every way equivalent. They both are redistribution, indeed.

That is not the case for SaaS in question. What you download during use can in no way be reconstructed into its original form. You can't use the software for a while and then, from what you've collected, start running the software on your local machine. The artifacts of use are very different from the software itself. To stick with your analogy, watching a movie on Netflix does not give you a copy of their server software. Distribution has not occurred.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#12

Post by keskival »

The point of an OSS license in these kinds of situations is pretty simple:

They need to pick a license which is salty enough so that big corporations cannot use it, but have to buy a special license from the authors.

Meanwhile they can support and benefit from the open source community without bureaucracy, and get a maximal userbase to create content on the web about this stack, and have a maximal number of people who know this stack and want to use it.

AGPL is perfect for this.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#13

Post by Avshalom »

kazinator wrote: post #10
dafelst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>You cannot change it and run it yourself, without hosting the source code.

Yes I can. It's only if I let other people use my changed code that they become entitled to a copy.

>You cannot combine an AGPL program with proprietary code and operate it, because you cannot release the proprietary code.

hmm, gotta say that sounds like the proprietary code is the thing infringing on my usage.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#14

Post by aaron695 »

iaaan wrote: post #3

Every 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.

> and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor.

This is anti the ethos of GPL [1]

And that's fine, you choose a list or rules that fitted with your wants, you don't have to respect A/GPL.

But time and time again we see most people on HN not respecting the A/GPL ethos they clam to follow and not understanding what A/GPL will mean in practice.

> disproportionately profiting

Off Topic to GPL. Corporations have provided more value to the world than any person. Which is almost a tautology since corporations are just groups of people working together. "Disproportionately profiting off of my labor" would mean they are providing amazing resources to people who need them.

You sound like you don't want others to succeed. Which is different to you need to make money to live.

[1] The legal/logical issues we see with AGPL are from trying to get the license to match the ethos. It's commendable they did stick it out.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#15

Post by grobbyy »

karmakaze wrote: post #2

> Elasticsearch alternative built on Postgres Without horizontal scaling it's more like a hosted/queryable Lucene.

A key issue for me is API compatibility. It's nice to do simple and scalable, but you can't have both at once.

API compatibility message I can run simple for small setups and scalable for large ones. That's nice and something I strive for in software I build.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#16

Post by meiraleal »

kazinator wrote: post #10
dafelst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> What can I not do with AGPL software?

> You cannot change it and run it yourself, without hosting the source code.

So your point is that people should be free to take whatever they want for free and dont't contribute back? I'm glad there is a license made to put a limit on people like you then

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#17

Post by PhilippGille »

They looked at 4 licenses (Apache, Business Source License, AGPL, Elastic License) representing different categories.

I think the Mozilla Public License represents another category and should always be evaluated as well. (or the Eclipse Public License or CDDL are similar)

They are less permissive than Apache in that they require contributing back (as in open sourcing changes under same license), but more permissive than AGPL in that you can statically link an MPL licensed library into your project without having to open source your project.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#18

Post by graemep »

PhilippGille wrote: post #17

They looked at 4 licenses (Apache, Business Source License, AGPL, Elastic License) representing different categories. I think the Mozilla Public License represents another category and should always be evaluated as well. (or the Eclipse Public License or CDDL are similar) They are less permissive than Apache in that they require contributing back (as in open sourcing changes under same license), but more permissive t…

LGPL also allows that.

What MPL is missing AFAIK that AGPL does have is requiring making source/changes available when providing the software as a network service.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#19

Post by graemep »

kazinator wrote: post #6
dafelst wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

> The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program.

Its the same "bad thing" as distributing a modified binary without the source. Its a way of denying end users access to the source code.

You can do whatever you like with AGPL code, as long as you make the source available.

it is VERY different from saying "you cannot do this with your software". It is just changing the conditions under which make source available is required to keep up with how people use software has changed.

AGPL is nothing like a EULA. It is a license, not a contract. It is very similar to the GPL

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#20

Post by PhilippGille »

graemep wrote: post #18
PhilippGille wrote: post #17

They looked at 4 licenses (Apache, Business Source License, AGPL, Elastic License) representing different categories. I think the Mozilla Public License represents another category and should always be evaluated as well. (or the Eclipse Public License or CDDL are similar) They are less permissive than Apache in that they require contributing back (as in open sourcing changes under same license), but more permissive t…

LGPL also allows that. What MPL is missing AFAIK that AGPL does have is requiring making source/changes available when providing the software as a network service.

No, LGPL has specific requirements for static linking. When your product is usually a Go binary that you can publish as is, using an LGPL library makes it tricky.

And re network service, I don't see the MPL tying the requirement to making changes available to a method of distribution.

Post reply on HN