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

291–300 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#291

Post by kazinator »

chii wrote: post #120
kazinator wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A EULA needs to be a contract. Nope. It can just be a piece of text you agree with when opening a classic mass-marked app in a shrink-warpped box ("shrink-wrap EULA") or a dialog box with text where you have to click that by using the software, you agree with the licensing terms. Exactly the same as when you deploy an AGPL program for visitors, you are agreeing to its EULA.

which is exactly what a contract is. It's an agreement between different parties.

Regardless, it can't be the case that the GNU Affero GPL is not a contract, whereas some Microsoft EULA is, or vice versa. They are an instance of exactly the same category.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#292

Post by demurgos »

camgunz wrote: post #183
demurgos wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You linked a more general FAQ for the GPL. Would you have a more specific quote or link for interactions with AGPL code?

"In AGPLv3, what counts as 'interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network?'" "If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played online." "If a program is n…

Thank you!

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#293

Post by demurgos »

misterio7 wrote: post #177
demurgos wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You linked a more general FAQ for the GPL. Would you have a more specific quote or link for interactions with AGPL code?

AFAIK, the difference between AGPL is GPL is on what constitutes "distribution"; what constitutes a "derivative" is still the same. https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

Thank you!

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#294

Post by camgunz »

awesomeMilou wrote: post #259
camgunz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be evidence that HN posters have a poor understanding of GPL licenses. Pretty much all these questions are answered in the FAQ [0]. Your guess is as good as mine as to why people continually post random, uninformed, needlessly conservative takes on them instead of just doing a small amount of reading. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

That's the GNU project's interpretation of the license. I don't see how a court couldn't reach a different agreement on what the often discussed "derivative works" section means. The FAQ also has interesting takes, where depending on the jurisdiction you're in, I'm sure such views would differ: Q: In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPLed without modifying, and subclass it, in what w…

I know a lot of this stuff is legally pretty new (though AGPLv3 is almost 17 years old now) and there's not a huge body of case law around it. But--and I'm earnestly asking here--is there case law where courts reach in and modify licenses separate from the authors' explicit intent? It's hard for me to imagine a court doing that, especially with all the reliance interests involved (I use AGPLv3 with the understanding that subclassing requires release, court says no, now my business model is toast).

> I'd argue that "subclassing" essentially constitutes just using an interface (in the general sense, not in the Java sense) to some existing software, so in Minio's case, using their API would constitute a similar usage pattern -> my "derivative" work must now be GPL licensed.

No, again the difference is incorporation. In order to subclass something you have to incorporate it into your code.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#295

Post by camgunz »

dspillett wrote: post #264
camgunz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is certainly the case for LGPL, but by my understanding it isn't for GPL nor by extension AGPL. If you don't modify, you have no obligations. Easy.

Nope. That is LGPL. Under (A)GPL if you make a derivative work you have obligations even if you do not modify. Easy. [Well, not so easy, as this discussion and the likes of Minio saying “get your own lawyer to tell you what our licence says” illustrate – what constitutes a derived work is apparently not objectively well-defined] Don't believe me? Ask Google and their vast legal team: https://opensource.google/documen…

Neither the AGPLv3 nor your link reference "derivative works". It's a GPLv2 concept they jettisoned for (A)GPLv3.

https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL...

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#296

Post by camgunz »

dspillett wrote: post #265
camgunz wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they have a strong incentive to get you to buy a commercial license. I'm not surprised they're uninterested in giving you free legal advice in service of not paying them.

That isn't what they say though. Their statement reads as “we don't actually fully know how the licence we have chosen works”. The answer to “can I do X with your product?” shouldn't, in a reasonable world, constitute expensive legal advice. It feels rather shifty to me.

Maybe, but that's more a comment about Minio than AGPLv3.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#297

Post by the-grump »

yencabulator wrote: post #279
the-grump wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put in the effort to create the product. It's their choice how to license it. Now it's up to you whether to sign that CLA to upstream your changes. You're welcome to maintain a fully AGPL fork if you don't like that.

ParadeDB seems to be thin glue over preexisting Postgres extensions and C / Rust libraries.

They are free to license that glue however they please, within the legal limits.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#298

Post by camgunz »

dspillett wrote: post #266
camgunz wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you diff them, you'll see the AGPLv3 is essentially the GPLv3 with this extra clause added: "13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity t…

If connecting over the network doesn't constitute linking in a way that imposes AGPL obligations, then Google's position, or the reason they state for it, ( https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl... ) is simply wrong. No offence, but I'm going to believe their expensive legal team not being able to find a way around this means that your interpretation is not correct.

Ha well, as a lover of spirited conversation I am not at all offended. I'm not telling you you have to use (A)GPL code, I'm just trying to dispel various rumor.

I really, truly believe the GPLs have revolutionized our society. It's hard to imagine the internet and tech looking as good as they do (they could look way, way worse) without copyleft. Somewhere along the way we adopted this simplistic, hypothetical conception of freedom as "fewer restrictions and obligations", but experience gives us numerous counterpoints. Who is more free, the citizen of a country that protects against robbery, fraud, and violence, or the denizen of a lawless land? Oftentimes restricting one freedom (the freedom to kill, the freedom to close source) unlocks untold other freedoms (freedom to speak or worship without violence, freedom to build Google et al on the back of FOSS software). We've weirdly forgotten this, and I'm doing what I can to remind us.

That Google policy is actually heartening to me. It means that if I build some successful infra app and license it under the AGPLv3, there's zero chance I'll see it show up in GCP. That's a mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#299

Post by gspr »

myworkinisgood wrote: post #271
gspr wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best way to avoid any such issue is to contribute changes to the upstream project, which is our goal with the choice of license. This I understand. But it doesn't really address Martin's worry about an accidental modification. Or apparent confusion about what constitutes modification.

There's no accidental modification. > Not true. There is no need to accept the license if you exercise only your statutory rights, which in many jurisdictions includes the right to run the program and to patch it if necessary (e.g., for compatibility with other programs).

Interesting. Do you have any clarification about which these "many" jurisdictions are? Like, can we expect this to be the case in most of the world?

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#300

Post by teddyh »

lmm wrote: post #289
teddyh wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FSF requires copyright assignment for many (possibly no longer all?) of their own projects The FSF requires nothing of the projects; the FSF leaves the choice of copyright assignment up to the project and its maintainers. Which is what I wrote. The fact that many projects do choose to require copyright assignment does not make you be less wrong when you said that the FSF requires it. > They cannot change the GP…

> The FSF requires nothing of the projects; the FSF leaves the choice of copyright assignment up to the project and its maintainers. And in the case of their own projects , the projects where the FSF is the project/the maintainers, what is it they do? They require copyright assignment.

What are you talking about? The FSF is not the direct maintainer for any projects, as far as I know. The project maintainers are people.
Post reply on HN