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

31–40 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#31

Post by mattl »

kazinator wrote: post #21
meiraleal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

I've spent thousands of hours writing code which is under the BSD license. Nice try trying to make the argument about me. (I've not put anything under even the dubious GPL license in over 15 years, and never will.) Yes, a free software license must not require people to "contribute back", or anything of the sort. For instance, a "free for non-commercial use" license is not free. Even the people who came up with the A…

> Yes, a free software license must not require people to "contribute back", or anything of the sort.

This was in fact Stallman's original vision for Emacs.

https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html

"It is distributed on a basis of communal sharing, which means that all improvements must be given back to me to be incorporated and distributed."

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#33

Post by michaelsbradley »

PhilippGille wrote: post #20
graemep wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Static linking with LGPL is possible for proprietary software; the requirements are sometimes misunderstood:

   If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami...

So, relinkability is the key. For some platforms and toolchains that may be impractical but for others not so much.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#34

Post by levkk »

kazinator wrote: post #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…

> The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software.

This is a common misconception about Free software. It's not about freedom of its users or authors, it's freedom of the actual code to be available for others.

For example, MIT license allows users to take the code and modify it without releasing modifications. This traps the new version of the software, possibly forever, inside a single organization.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#35

Post by xboxnolifes »

levkk wrote: post #34
kazinator wrote: post #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…

> The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software. This is a common misconception about Free software. It's not about freedom of its users or authors, it's freedom of the actual code to be available for others. For example, MIT license allows users to take the code and modify it without releasing modifications. This traps the new version of the software, possibly for…

It's my understanding that the MIT license has no such restriction on publishing modifications. The only restriction is that existing code must stay MIT licensed.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#36

Post by tivert »

kazinator wrote: post #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…

> Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use.

I think you're wrong.

> The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use.

The GPL, at least, puts restrictions on use: you can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) unless you distribute it in source form to the end users.

> The AGPL restricts use; it is an EULA: end-user license agreement. The antithesis of free software.

The AGPL does exactly the same thing as the GPL, just with a stronger distribution requirement: if you distribute access to end users, you must distribute it in source form to the end users.

The GPL was designed for the binary distribution age of software, the AGPL is the GPL for the SaaS distribution age. The GPL alone cannot satisfy Free Software goals in the new age.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#37

Post by nsonha »

grobbyy wrote: post #15
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.

doesn't look like the case here as they don't even have an API (to be drop-in replacement for ES)

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#38

Post by olavgg »

kazinator wrote: post #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…

AGPL doesn't restrict use:

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#39

Post by kazinator »

tivert wrote: post #36
kazinator wrote: post #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…

> Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use. I think you're wrong. > The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use. The GPL, at least, puts restrictions on use: you can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) unless you distribute it in source form to the end users. > The AGPL restricts us…

> can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob)

Yes, you can. You can combine a GPLed program with whatever you want; you just can't redistribute the result if the combination runs afoul of the GPL.

redistribution is not use. Use is running the program, reading the program, trying changes and such.

You can combine GNU Bash with proprietary code and let users remotely log in to your box to try it.

> if you distribute access to end users

There is no such thing. Copyright law does not recognize "distributing access". The program is not being redistributed when it executes and exchanges messages with remote stations.

"Distributing access" also reminds me of the idea of someone hearing the sound of your coins jingling, or smelling your cooking: as in from the famous case of Ōoka_Tadasuke that circulates as a popular parable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ōoka_Tadasuke#Famous_cases

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#40

Post by tgma »

Hamcha wrote: post #32

Correction: they chose AGPL with a poison pill (CLA) so they can benefit from it and take it away whenever they want more.

This.

The AGPL deception is you brand yourself as community-minded. As long as you don't rely on external contributions that's fair. But what the AGPL startups don't emphasize is they require you to either assign your copyright to them or give them extra privileges to your contributions to be able to relicense it under non AGPL (if they don't they don't know what they are doing).

AGPL is also not considered a very safe license by large organizations even if you want to run it internally unmodified, alongside the rest of your application. Many big companies have blanket bans on AGPL.

Post reply on HN