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

Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

grafana.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 578 posts

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#281

Post by LambdaComplex »

sneak wrote: post #264
blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

I view the AGPL as a nonfree license; I think more permissive licenses are better, because I believe in software freedom. Companies are right to avoid the AGPL.

You believe in freedom for who, exactly? Freedom for the users of software? Or freedom for corporations who benefit from denying access to the source code of that software?

The Free Software Foundation exists to protect the former at the expense of the latter.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#282

Post by MayeulC »

cardanome wrote: post #162
lacker wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the four are in fact outliers: Kubernetes and Android are both financially backed by Google. Is that really "outlier" behavior? More and more important open source projects are prominently backed by a single large tech company. React, TensorFlow, TypeScript, Go, etc. If you just look at the last decade, there has been more important work done as "single-sponsor open source" than under the GPL.

A few monopolistic corporations having dictatorial power over key technologies is a dystopian nightmare. Those projects have ultimately the interests of the corporations in mind not of the users. Ever wonder why overcomplicated technical solutions are hyped so much? Why does everyone and their dog need to run Kubernetes? Why is it all Maschine Learning instead of good old fashioned methods that would do much better?…

> A few monopolistic corporations having dictatorial power over key technologies is a dystopian nightmare.

These corporations are eating the world. They need not keep their source code closed, we're all employees, generating revenue for them.

One of the only reasons to keep source code closed is to retain your competitive advantage. They need not that when there's no competition, or a very slim chance of some appearing one day.

I'm joking, but it sounds a bit more true than I expected. Also, mind you, I'd rather have them publish code than not.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#283

Post by tshaddox »

ankmathur96 wrote: post #277
tshaddox wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you think that earning money or having a viable business model is a bad thing? Nope, but I kinda thought the whole idea behind open source is that no one company or group of companies/licensees gets privileged access to or control over the software, including any company that happens to have the same name as the piece of software. I realize that “open source” and “free software” and other related labels mean man…

I don't believe this is a realistic take on open-source. There's not a single successful modern OSS project that's not basically controlled by a single organization (or was not at some point in its conception). Control can take multiple forms: most of the time, it's directional to the project, since the roadmap of the company managing the project dictates what gets done. Sometimes, it's in the form of how you can use…

> I don't believe this is a realistic take on open-source. ... The challenging part is making that a project where active development is actually happening.

Well, yeah, that’s just the most obvious gut reaction everyone has when they first hear about open source software: Why in the world would anyone put work into software that’s free for everyone to use? My impression is that open source advocates have put tons of work into explaining why this can and does actually work and can result in software that’s better than proprietary alternatives.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#284

Post by TeMPOraL »

ctvo wrote: post #242
bostik wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I want to disagree with you on the general principle (and gen220's sibling comment points out several really nice longer-term examples), I will certainly admit that you have a point. Cloud providers eating the margins, investing in streamlined operations and in general making the earlier on-prem consulting work less attractive has had an effect. But I do note that your examples are from quite a narrow sector. T…

> But I do note that your examples are from quite a narrow sector. TypeScript, Go and React are all languages. TypeScript is a nice facade over JavaScript, and React is ... well, a very powerful DSL.[ß] > ß: Our frontend team will probably want to roast me for that one, but there isn't much visible JS left in modern React code. Not for my eyes, at least. Can you clarify what you're talking about here with regards to…

> but React is a language now?

In a way, it is. Whenever you write some module in your project, you're effectively designing a language. Every function you add is a new verb, every type you define is a new noun[0] - and the relationships between them form the grammar. It may sound trivial, but I think it's an important and underappreciated point. Modularizing and abstracting is done by building languages on top of other languages.

We usually make a distinction between what is a "library" or "module" and what is a "language", by... it's hard to capture the distinction exactly, but my guess is that we reserve the term "programming language" for languages that a) define a large, highly composable set of building blocks, and b) have complex translation into a lower-level language, ultimately yielding executable code. Whatever the distinction could be, in reality, it's a spectrum.

--

[0] - Well, a piece of a noun phrase. Maybe. I'm not a linguist.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#285

Post by akulkarni »

pritambaral wrote: post #251
akulkarni wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Timescale founder) We actually designed the Timescale License to be _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. It just prevents public clouds from offering TimescaleDB-aaS.

> _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. Heads up: calling out the virality of copyleft licenses as a "restriction" is a common tactic used by the anti-FOSS brigade — this includes the likes of Microsoft under Steve Ballmer that famously called the GPL "a cancer". So it seems like you're re-using old FUD tactics, even if you don't intend to. Putting that aside, what you claim also happens to be an est…

Thank you, I appreciate this thoughtful comment.

And to those who keep downvoting my comments simply because they don't agree with them - I always welcome thoughtful discussions. :-)

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#286

Post by jeffbee »

gpanders wrote: post #255
raegis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this is not a popular opinion, but Google's AGPL policy reads like FUD to me. From the first paragraph: "...extremely difficult for Google to comply with..." and "...presents a huge risk to Google..." and later in the document is the best part: "This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code...". All from a company which built itself on GPL software. This reminds me of Steve Ballmer…

It is absolutely FUD. https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

On the one hand you have a large department of battle-hardened IP lawyers who say that AGPL virality is overbroad and poorly defined, and on the other hand you have a FOSS advocate who says it's fine, so I guess we'll never know for sure!

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#287

Post by ocdtrekkie »

swyx wrote: post #263
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care so much about the AGPL specifically, but it's a single known license, rather than every time I find a new project having to find out what "interesting" license they cooked up this time.

yes but afaict SSPL was kiiinda becoming a de facto "f off AWS" license that was generally becoming standard. thats all any of these vendors want, they're not coming up with new licenses just for shits and giggles. standards evolve over time, it was entirely possible that Grafana could have thrown its weight behind SSPL and helped legitimize it more.

This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from obstructionist to a more constructive point, where they help evolve the SSPL to address their concerns, while recognizing that it is a copyleft open source license.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#288

Post by DetroitThrow »

nopzor wrote: post #192
judofyr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables. […] It's a very measured and thoughtful way to ensure the long term progress and continuity of these projects. Ahem: Grafana Labs Brings In $50M Series B For Open-Source Developer Platform: https://news.crunchbase.com/news/grafana-labs-brings-in-50m-... I compl…

do you think that earning money or having a viable business model is a bad thing? look at our actions since the inception of the company, as well as our "big tent" philosophy; i think they speak for ourselves. we built a sustainable business over the course of 4 years, prior to raising a dollar of VC money. we raised VC money to go even faster. most of our VC money goes to paying our employees. most of our employees…

I'm glad you were able to find a FOSS license that's able to support your business. I think grafana lab's use of AGPL will help encourage its adoption by other businesses wanting to make money in free software as well.

For other's who are interested, here's a faq from grafana including a discussion about "Why AGPL and not SSPL?": https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/20/qa-with-our-ceo-on-relic...

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#289

Post by viraptor »

platz wrote: post #250
soenkeliebau wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes; if you're going to do this, then using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license. I'm not sure I agree. Yes, standardization is a good thing and AGPL is the "known evil", but having read it I do think that it is a very very complex piece of text - personally I'd go so far as to say that it is close to incomprehensible and would prefer pretty much anything else. But even aside from that the sheer nu…

If companies want to ban AGPL, well that's their perogative. Alternatively, catering to those companies wouldn't bring relevant benefits to the project anyway

There are corps which have a (close to) blanket ban on AGPL, but still submit patches to open source projects. HP would be one of them.

I don't think it's a big loss though.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#290

Post by reader_mode »

bostik wrote: post #213
lacker wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the four are in fact outliers: Kubernetes and Android are both financially backed by Google. Is that really "outlier" behavior? More and more important open source projects are prominently backed by a single large tech company. React, TensorFlow, TypeScript, Go, etc. If you just look at the last decade, there has been more important work done as "single-sponsor open source" than under the GPL.

While I want to disagree with you on the general principle (and gen220's sibling comment points out several really nice longer-term examples), I will certainly admit that you have a point. Cloud providers eating the margins, investing in streamlined operations and in general making the earlier on-prem consulting work less attractive has had an effect. But I do note that your examples are from quite a narrow sector. T…

Replace React with angular, replace Go with .NET which is a platform, and it's not just the language entire stacks in .NET are available as OSS (fronted, backend, distributed computing).
Post reply on HN