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

161–170 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#161

Post by [deleted] »

jan_g wrote: post #156
ashkankiani wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying reply to a child comment: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." In the Basic permissions of the actual content of the license https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/LICENSE It's not that difficult to parse if you actually read it top to bottom instead of skimming.

But you forgot to cite the next sentence: The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. So, what is 'covered work'? The license says this: A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program. Do you still think it's clearly written license? To me it's dubious enough that I wanted an explicit answer f…

[deleted]

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#162

Post by afro88 »

haytamoptika wrote: post #144
goodpoint wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." I think you can interact with GPL/AGPL and retain your code propietary by: - Don't…

Github may have it wrong then? Their summary says:

> Permissions of this strongest copyleft license are conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license.

Note the last part: "which include licensed works using a licensed work"

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#164

Post by jasode »

jan_g wrote: post #156
ashkankiani wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying reply to a child comment: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." In the Basic permissions of the actual content of the license https://github.com/minio/minio/blob/master/LICENSE It's not that difficult to parse if you actually read it top to bottom instead of skimming.

But you forgot to cite the next sentence: The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. So, what is 'covered work'? The license says this: A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program. Do you still think it's clearly written license? To me it's dubious enough that I wanted an explicit answer f…

>Do you still think it's clearly written license?

Fyi... a few Google employees talked about similar ambiguous interpretations of AGPL's terms and clauses by Google's legal team review in a past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23966778

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#165

Post by gspr »

JohannesSuenden wrote: post #24

I love the AGPL. I can't imagine it becoming popular for generic business functionality in library form, but for highly-specialized libraries (in my case scientific with industrial applications) it was everything I was looking for --- not least because automated license scanners flag it and scare potential parasites away. It's also a great choice for complete pieces of software (such as DBs, as in this case) to offer…

I have no experience with the AGPL, but I really really like the idea of it. However, I get worried when I read takes like Hector Martin's [1]. In essence, he argues that it becomes very easy for the end-user to make even the most trivial of modifications to AGPL code or stuff associated to it and accidentally violate the license's quine requirement.

Do you have any insight on this?

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/737708

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#166

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

k__ wrote: post #112
zelphirkalt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Big corporations could use the license and stick to its terms, but no, they don't want to. Better in their view to just take take take and never give. What they don't see however, and what is on no ones quarterly number sheet, is all the talent they don't attract.

Which is funny, as enterprise customers have no issue in buying closed source software, but the moment they see a GPL, they lose their mind.

No, that's a gross mischaracterization based on ignorance. It only applies to AGPL because it prevents SaaS services. And because it can't be proven that an AGPL app isn't required as part of a SaaS service to function, then it can't be used anywhere in a MAANG shop.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#167

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

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…

Code lacks agency. It's not a person.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#168

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

afro88 wrote: post #162
haytamoptika wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." I think you can interact with GPL/AGPL and retain your code propietary by: - Don't…

Github may have it wrong then? Their summary says: > Permissions of this strongest copyleft license are conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Note the last part: "which include licensed works using a licensed work"

No, GitHub has it exactly right. Ultimately this sort of thing has to be settled in court.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#169

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

Absolutely. As the copyright owners, the authors of the software can always sell permissions to corporations. This allows software to become free. Stallman himself has suggested this to corporations:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

People have pointed out to me that the above is not quite the same as what happens today with people building proprietary SaaS platforms. So I emailed Stallman to ask about the ethics of it. This was his reply:

  > It is my understanding that as the copyright holders
  > they have the right to do it without any problems.
  > They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their
  > competitors to use the code to compete against them.

  I see what you mean. The original developer can engage
  in a practice that blocks coopertation.

  By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL,
  would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice.
  In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it is
  also more harmful.

  On balance, using the AGPL is better.
Post reply on HN