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

51–60 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#51

Post by fweimer »

kazinator wrote: post #6
dafelst wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service. It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a…

Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…

The AGPL does not restrict running the program. Only if you run modified versions, things get complicated.

That being said, I think the AGPL is only appropriate for programs that come with a built-in source redistribution mechanism that ensures that modified versions automatically comply with the source code redistribution requirement.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#52

Post by mperham »

growse wrote: post #50
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…

The duplicitous language is a bit slimy here. "In order for us, Retake, Inc. (dba ParadeDB) to accept patches and other contributions from you, you need..." makes it sound like their hands are tied, you must assign copyright, there's no other option. In reality, this is a (contributor-hostile) choice they made. They could have made different ones.

[flagged]

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#53

Post by jay_kyburz »

I don't understand why they say

"Future-Proof: Thanks to the copyleft provision, cloud vendors cannot easily resell our project without our consent. This gives us confidence in our ability to monetize without fear of predatory competition. ParadeDB just turned one year old, and we’ve already been contacted by four cloud providers who, had we not chosen the AGPL license, may have privately forked and distributed ParadeDB."

Nothing in the license requires cloud vendors from reselling the project. They just need to make the source available?

What am I missing?

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#54

Post by purpleidea »

The fact that they aren't mentioning their CLA which gives them extra rights that everyone in the community doesn't get means they're disingenuous in writing this article...

As an analogy it's as if someone was selling you a new car, but neglected to tell you that it doesn't come with a steering wheel or tires.

Be transparent and tell the whole story, don't be sneaky.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#55

Post by purpleidea »

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 antithesis of free software.

Those who oppose the GPL are precisely the people it was designed to protect against.

I think we found a good example of your wishes here. You are against the GPL if you have an ulterior motive to make something proprietary and avoid contributing back!

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#56

Post by aeaa3 »

kazinator wrote: post #26
graemep wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A EULA needs to be a contract. THe AGPL is clearly not a contract nor does it meet the basic requirements for an enforceable contract in common law countries. Can you show me where I am wrong about this? > The source code to the program doesn't even do them any good. They cannot use that to prevent harms perpetrated by the operators of that application. It does. It means they can run their own instance instead of bei…

Sorry that was a typo we should have said "do not have the program" (corrected). But no the same is not true of the user of the AGPL. The GPL user having the source code and being able to program or hire somebody is utterly meaningful. That user controls the installation of the program. They would like the program to do something differently, or not to do something unwanted. With the buildable source code they can ac…

> The ability to set up your own clone instance its completely meaningless

Isn't that the whole point?

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#57

Post by remram »

kazinator wrote: post #6
dafelst wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, how does AGPL restrict use? From my reading of it, it is only ensuring that any modifications to the source code must be made available if you "distribute" the software, where distribution now includes hosting it as a service. It seems more or less in the original spirit of GPLv2 but updated for a SaaS driven world. If you consider v3 restrictive then you must also consider v2 restrictive, just in a…

Running a program, as a service or not, isn't redistribution. It is use. The original spirit of the GPL is about identifying people doing bad things we don't like and trying to prevent them. All those bad things have to do with redistribution, not with using the program. The AGPL is still about identifying people doing bad things we don't like, except now those people are just running the program. This is no differen…

> 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.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#58

Post by remram »

rpdillon wrote: post #46
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 It does not. You can absolutely host AGPL software as a service, you just have to share any modifications you made with those that use the service.

Agreed. In other words, the terms restrict what you can do when you modify not when you run. It is also not directed at end users (the "EU" of "EULA") but at the developer or sysadmin.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#59

Post by jay_kyburz »

tgma wrote: post #40
Hamcha wrote: post #32

Correction: they chose AGPL with a poison pill (CLA) so they can benefit from it and take it away whenever they want more.

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…

What happens if you (the contributor) fork the project, make a really great feature in your own fork, make it available as the license requires, then the startup integrates changes from the fork back into their own project. Does this then prevent them from ever changing the license away from AGPL?

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#60

Post by kazinator »

olavgg wrote: post #38
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…

AGPL doesn't restrict use: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

I would say that's an unhelpfully misleading statement in the license.

There exist obvious circumstances of the program's use with which the license doesn't concern itself, and does not speak to, and so in those circumstances the user is not required to enter into the license.

A redistributor must enter into the license because it's a derivative of the GPL, and so it has requirements related to distribution.

A user who runs the program in such a way that visitors communicate with it from remote stations obviously is required to enter into the license also and comply with its requirements.

The license is applied to programs for which this would be a typical use.

Post reply on HN