Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3 • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by throwaway2037 » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

ternaryoperator wrote: post #370

sneak wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Companies are right to avoid the AGPL" This was never an issue until Google was pinched on it five or six years ago and started a massive campaign to get the OSS movement to disfavor the AGPL. Google uses tons of GPL software that they don't pay for (Linux, Java, etc.) but once it became exterior-facing and the license applied to their software, then rather than pay to license the software, the world's fifth most va…

I understand your concern. After Google started the negative press about AGPL, some companies I worked also followed suit. It felt like blind following, as almost none of my software faces the public -- it's mostly internal. In that case, AGPL is no concern. But internal training made a big point about "avoid AGPL... even Google avoids it!" Truly, it was F.U.D. nonsense.

You also wrote: > While that statement may be true on the surface, it belies the fact that Google is either a major, direct contributor to the Linux kernel (and many of its parts). Or: Google is a major sponsor of open source orgs to pay for developers to work on open source projects -- like the Linux kernel.

Also: Are you aware that the Oracle version of Java requires companies to pay license costs when used in a production settings? I cannot say if Google uses a non-Oracle release. But if they do (sometimes) use the Oracle release, I am sure they pay licensing costs. Before you make a claim like that, you should share a source -- one way or the other. One reason why some companies choose to pay the license for Java (instead of using a non-Oracle pure open source release): They want the support when there is a security issue. Example: If you find a bug in the JVM and you are a major customer, then it will be much easier to get support directly from Oracle to release a fix.

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

#412

Post by throwaway2037 » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #352

sneak wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't consider it a problem at all. Nothing is being used improperly or against the spirit of free software when software freedom is exercised (by a service provider) - that's the whole point. I really think the whole AGPL is simply sour grapes, because most GPL-using businesses have not figured out how to become profitable. ("open source is not a business model.") The anti-corporate, anti-business types see pe…

Consider an extreme example -- someone takes LibreOffice and many other GPL-licensed programs and creates a business where you can only access them through the internet. They make massive (useful changes) to LibreOffice to the point that a vast majority of users switch to the online version because it is objectively better. However, because you can only access their fork of a GPL project over the internet, there is n…

Wow, this is a fascinating answer. I really like your thought experiment with LibreOffice. Imagine something even more nefarious: The whole LibreOffice team "quits" to start a company that does exactly the above. After building a large user base on their web-only version, they begin to charge for premium features. All while never distributing the GPL code ever again. To be clear to all readers: This is only a thought experiment!

Further: If we think about cloud-based AGPL apps: For the most part we are talking about web-apps, which, in most cases, will always include JavaScript running on the user's host. Does FSF or AGPL have anything to say about this source? I ask because I am thinking deeper about your idea: What if the not-so-LibreOffice was nothing more than compiled into WASM (WebAssembly) and run in your browser... so the "server" (SaaS) was doing nothing except serving a huge binary that you run locally in your JavaScript VM. Plus, the compile from C/C++ into WASM could reasonably obfuscate the original source. I do imagine a future where lots of commercial apps are nothing more than C/C++ compiled into WASM then run through a browser. This would provide some source code privacy (that vanilla JavaScript cannot provide today) and reduce the burden of installation issues.

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

#413

Post by moron4hire » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:34 AM UTC

clusterfish wrote: post #346

josephcsible wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the substance of what you said, but I'm going to nitpick a bit of wording: what you call "developer freedom" isn't freedom at all, and is more rightly called power. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

That seems like splitting hairs for ideological gain. You might as well describe freedom of movement as power to take someone else's job in another town, or freedom of speech as power to manipulate masses, or freedom to do an abortion as power over the unborn child. Which way the issues are framed says more about the author than the issue. Software has leverage (one developer, many users at low marginal cost) built-i…

> That seems like splitting hairs for ideological gain.

Such is the way of the FSF.

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

#414

Post by moron4hire » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:38 AM UTC

m4rtink wrote: post #343

josephcsible wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the substance of what you said, but I'm going to nitpick a bit of wording: what you call "developer freedom" isn't freedom at all, and is more rightly called power. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

Well, GPL is about freedom for the users , not necessarily for the developers.

How does freedom for the user-who-is-not-a-developer to change the source work, then? The FSF fundamentally assumes the user is a developer. Hell, look at the vast majority of the GNU software. I wouldn't say it's at all targeted at not-developer users.

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

#415

Post by spoonjim » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:40 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #299

Seirdy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of the point. The purpose of MIT/BSD is to enable nonfree derivative works; the purpose of the AGPL is to only allow free derivatives. AGPL maximizes freedom by prohibiting further restriction of it; it's a local maxima of "user freedom" as a function of "developer freedom". If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL.

I agree with the substance of what you said, but I'm going to nitpick a bit of wording: what you call "developer freedom" isn't freedom at all, and is more rightly called power. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html

Arguing over which one is “freedom” is a petty exercise in trying to claim the moral high ground. Instead, it’s more objective and accurate to say that GPL and BSD represent two different ideologies, and that the AGPL is definitely designed to promulgate the “GPL” ideology, so that it’s inability to be incorporated into BSD-licensed software is a feature and not a bug from the perspective of the people who choose to license their code as AGPL.

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

#416

Post by ezrast » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:59 AM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #401

ezrast wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, AGPL (and GPL) cannot be combined with any other license. See section 5c: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

That doesn't say you cannot combine it. It's saying what you have to do when you do combine it. It's not a restriction against combining it.

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. It sounds like you're saying that "cannot be combined with code under a different license" is meaningfully different from "can be combined with code under a different license, so long as you immediately relicense that code so it's not under a different license anymore". What am I missing?

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

#417

Post by yarg » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

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.

Certainly they should share - but must stretches things a little far.

Much in the same way as Amazon should provide their low-tech workers with livable conditions - but unless the law and applicable contracts specify otherwise, there's no must about it.

Cloud providers are doing an end run around the intention of the GPL - but not around its legal constraints.

(And before we consider possibilities otherwise, it might be more pertinent to at least attempt to punish companies in blatant violation - like the multitude of router manufactures routinely shipping GPL derived software without reasonable access to source.)

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

#418

Post by eitland » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

jrv wrote: post #183

josephcsible wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the ideal end-state from a software freedom perspective is that all software becomes AGPL. This change is a step in that direction, not only with the directly affected products, but for the reasons you mentioned, an additional pressure for more things to switch to it. Do you not like that end goal, or do you just think the side effects of the change outweigh the benefits of getting closer to it?

I think it's both a completely unrealistic end goal (we live in the real world), and I also think that the AGPL puts you into a hole where you can never get out of again if you decided that you now need different constraints. So I really much more prefer permissive licenses. Funnily just before you wrote this comment, I also tweeted just that :) : https://twitter.com/juliusvolz/status/1384599249082626052

It seems you can always just run the AGPL licensed software and as long as you interact with it through the network or the database you won't have to relicense anything.

What you cannot do is:

1. change the AGPL software itself and provide it to end users in any form without providing updated sources

2. make a combined product and not provide sources for all of it under AGPL.

3. Also there is nothing to prevent you from releasing sources of your software dual licensed under both MIT and AGPL.

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

#419

Post by cevian » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

foerbert wrote: post #355

cevian wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we never call it Open Source! (Timescale engineer here)

The whole issue arose from the claim that the Timescale license was designed to be less restrictive then the AGPL. That's why Open Source came up in the first place - pointing out that one of the basic reasons for the Timescale license to exist in the first place is to restrict one of the major reasons Open Source licenses exist.

That only makes sense if you agree with the open source foundation definition of restrictive. I don't. I think the ability to freely link to whatever other software is much more important to most people than the ability to run a *aaS. We never made any claims about open source only our opinion about what restrictive means to us.

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

#420

Post by josephcsible » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 3:16 AM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #412

cyphar wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider an extreme example -- someone takes LibreOffice and many other GPL-licensed programs and creates a business where you can only access them through the internet. They make massive (useful changes) to LibreOffice to the point that a vast majority of users switch to the online version because it is objectively better. However, because you can only access their fork of a GPL project over the internet, there is n…

Wow, this is a fascinating answer. I really like your thought experiment with LibreOffice. Imagine something even more nefarious: The whole LibreOffice team "quits" to start a company that does exactly the above. After building a large user base on their web-only version, they begin to charge for premium features. All while never distributing the GPL code ever again. To be clear to all readers: This is only a thought…

The source for compiled JavaScript or WASM needs to be provided even with just the GPL rather than the AGPL. The loophole in the GPL only applies if the code is actually running on someone else's server and not the user's client.