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

121–130 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#121

Post by chii »

kazinator wrote: post #85
remram wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. This is not how I see it at all. The ones using it are the users, and if they sit across the network you are distributing it in a very tangible sense. The idea that the admin running a service is the one doing the "use" and not the users of your service is debatable to say the least.

The admin uses the software, regardless of who else is regarded as a user. Among the users, the admin is the one saddled with use restrictions by the license.

The users of the software (not just the admin who is serving the software over a network) has the right under AGPL to request for the source.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#122

Post by dns_snek »

gumby wrote: post #64
dns_snek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The project is licensed under AGPL, but outside contributors have to sign away their rights with CLA if they wish to contribute to the main project. It's in CONTRIBUTING.md [1] > In order for us, Retake, Inc. (dba ParadeDB) to accept patches and other contributions from you, you need to adopt our ParadeDB Contributor License Agreement (the "CLA"). The current version of the CLA can be found here. https://github.com/p…

TL;DR: my quick read is that they are trying to do the right thing. My not super-close reading is that this is actually reasonable (but note: I wrote the original GNU blanket assignment back around 1989 or 1990 so you may consider my perspective bogus). This agreement says that you confirm that you have the right to license your contribution (that what you wrote isn’t actually your employer’s), and that they can use…

Interesting. I think concerns about legality of contributions are completely understandable.

But doesn't this CLA in particular (and most CLAs out there generally) assign the company behind it a license to distribute all contributions under any license they wish? Specifically the part that I quoted where contributors give them an "irrevocable copyright license" to "sublicense" their contributions?

As far as I understand, this allows them to unilaterally re-license the project as a whole (to proprietary or non-free open source) without asking contributors for permission.

The only way I'd agree to a CLA is if it included explicit language that ensured that they couldn't do this, e.g. "You hereby grant [...] under the terms of the AGPL v3 license", but I'm not a lawyer.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#123

Post by [deleted] »

globular-toast wrote: post #115
contrarian1234 wrote: post #101

Is there some AGPL equivalent on top of GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 After reading the rational for v2 for the Linux kernel, Ive always found v3 a bit off putting.

The "Tivo-isation" clause? You'd want AGPL but without that bit? That would be strange. I doubt Linus likes AGPL either because, unfortunately, his relationship with the FSF is always going to be sour. He's one of most stubborn people on earth (for better or worse).

[deleted]

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#124

Post by contrarian1234 »

globular-toast wrote: post #115
contrarian1234 wrote: post #101

Is there some AGPL equivalent on top of GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 After reading the rational for v2 for the Linux kernel, Ive always found v3 a bit off putting.

The "Tivo-isation" clause? You'd want AGPL but without that bit? That would be strange. I doubt Linus likes AGPL either because, unfortunately, his relationship with the FSF is always going to be sour. He's one of most stubborn people on earth (for better or worse).

As I say in the neighboring comment, I think the two compliment each other a lot more than v3. Linus would get even more code contributions .. I think he'd be happy

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#125

Post by camgunz »

jan_g wrote: post #118

I don't know about ParadeDB, but this was very off-putting for me in case of Minio when they switched to AGPL. If you check their answers to various license questions, they are essentially this: if you use Minio in your stack/product (for profit), then we recommend our commercial license or consult with a lawyer if your use case is covered by AGPL or not. What me and I guess many others wanted was a simple yes/no to…

No, the whole idea of the AGPL is to make you release modifications even if you're not distributing (i.e. a web app). No modifications, no release.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#126

Post by thyristan »

quectophoton wrote: post #70
trueismywork wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need CLA for legal protection, Developer certificate of origin is enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_Certificate_of_Ori...

Is this actually legally binding? What would be the difference w.r.t. informed consent, between DCOs and the "I have read and accept the terms and conditions" checkboxes from most websites? It also gives me similar vibes to the Do-Not-Track HTTP header since both can be enabled by default.

DCO is something like "Signed-of-by: me myself " you have to actively add to your contributions, which is usually a conscious and willful act that is far more complex than blindly ticking a box (or even leaving a pre-ticked box ticked). Since that bar is higher, I think the legal weight should be higher.

CLA-Assistant is also similarly simple to fill out, so that can't be the difference there...

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#127

Post by tgma »

lmm wrote: post #106
tgma wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

> 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). There's nothing specific to the AGPL or s…

The model is equivalent. Everything else is different.

FSF's structure, purpose, history and guardrails against non-hijacking make it distinct from a startup whose purpose is to claim "open source" but preclude Amazon and keep their revenue stream. Nothing against them or their business model; it's their prerogative, of course. So is the community and customer's read on their future actions. To claim you should assume they are the same is preposterous and/or fooling yourself. Criminals and police officers both have guns too. Doesn't make them identical.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#128

Post by jay_kyburz »

sfink wrote: post #110
jay_kyburz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If true, this license does nothing to mitigate the risk that a user may get locked into contracts they don't like, or the ability to continue to use the software if the developer goes bankrupt or is bought by a competitor. If you can't use the AGPL version now, you can't use it later either. And I don't see how it prevents "Cloud Vendors" from using it, but not everybody else as well.

Even if the (CLA-owning) organization changes the license, the last version available under the AGPL will always be available under the AGPL. > If you can't use the AGPL version now, you can't use it later either. Right. But you can use it now and later. > And I don't see how it prevents "Cloud Vendors" from using it, but not everybody else as well. Cloud vendors can use it. What they can't do is fork it and start ma…

So I guess what you are saying is that the business model is that cloud vendors will buy a license, but only if they they want to make changes to the code, but not release those changes.

So not just small changes, big changes that have a significant value-add, and not easily replicated. It assumes cloud vendors will want to start building a business on top of this critical dependency.

It doesn't sound like a great deal for the cloud vendor.

I assume we are really only talking about Amazon, Microsoft and Google, and the developer hopes to just get bought rather than messing around with licenses.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#129

Post by goodpoint »

jan_g wrote: post #118

I don't know about ParadeDB, but this was very off-putting for me in case of Minio when they switched to AGPL. If you check their answers to various license questions, they are essentially this: if you use Minio in your stack/product (for profit), then we recommend our commercial license or consult with a lawyer if your use case is covered by AGPL or not. What me and I guess many others wanted was a simple yes/no to…

> if I use Minio in my stack without modifications (as a file server that my other services interact with via an API), do I have to AGPL all the stuff the touches Minio or not

No and it's spelled out very clearly in the license.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#130

Post by dgb23 »

keskival wrote: post #12

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 wh…

I thought the point of copyleft was mainly to protect the freedoms of users.

But apparently it’s also used as a filter of who can interact and benefit from it.

But I don’t really understand all of it.

One thing I always wondered about selling separate licenses alongside GPL:

Can the authors (holding the copyright) distribute code under a different license when there were external contributors under GPL?

Post reply on HN