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

91–100 of 312 posts

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#91

Post by tivert »

kazinator wrote: post #39
tivert wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here is the rub: free software permits unconditional use. I think you're wrong. > The GPL without the A, or MIT or BSD licenses are not EULAs; they place restrictions or conditions on redistribution, not on use. The GPL, at least, puts restrictions on use: you can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) unless you distribute it in source form to the end users. > The AGPL restricts us…

> can't use the software in certain ways (e.g. use in a binary firmware blob) Yes, you can. You can combine a GPLed program with whatever you want; you just can't redistribute the result if the combination runs afoul of the GPL. redistribution is not use. Use is running the program, reading the program, trying changes and such. You can combine GNU Bash with proprietary code and let users remotely log in to your box t…

Honestly, I'm getting the impression you're too being too rigid with definitions: anchoring too strongly in the incidental specifics of GPL as being "free software" while ignoring its goals.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#92

Post by wavemode »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #90
wavemode wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception. Nothing in the text of the AGPL requires this whatsoever. But it's a common enough misconception that my personal recommendation tends to be to just steer clear anyway, if you're planning to run a closed-source business. It's better to not get sued at all, than to get sued by someone who's wrong. But for reference, the only text added to the AGPL in comparison to the GPL is section 13…

I spent some time reading about static linking and dynamic linking. From the FAQ > "Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination" If I had to guess, if you installed each application in your stack separately, and they simply interacted with ea…

The System Library exception isn't even needed. The key word in what you've quoted is "linking". If you aren't linking, then you aren't creating a combined derivative work at all.

Linking in this context refers to a very specific thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker_(computing)

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#93

Post by jenadine »

purpleidea wrote: post #54

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.

The analogy is a bit strong. You make it sound like the CLA is a limitation to the product. But the CLA doesn't't limit the product in any way.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#94

Post by jenadine »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #33
PhilippGille wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, LGPL has specific requirements for static linking. When your product is usually a Go binary that you can publish as is, using an LGPL library makes it tricky. And re network service, I don't see the MPL tying the requirement to making changes available to a method of distribution.

Static linking with LGPL is possible for proprietary software; the requirements are sometimes misunderstood: If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... So, relinkability is the ke…

The LGPL is great for software libraries written in C, but doesn't really work for any other programming language. It uses concepts like object files and linking that assumes C. Even in C++ which is closely related you get issues with templates (users can't easily replace that code by their own since it is inlined in the binaries)

Many programming languages don't even have the concept of dynamic linking or object files that can be shared.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#95

Post by jenadine »

aeaa3 wrote: post #56
kazinator wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. But that point doesn't help the users since they don't have the data.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#96

Post by nsonha »

philippemnoel wrote: post #65
nsonha wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't look like the case here as they don't even have an API (to be drop-in replacement for ES)

We have some API-compatibility in faceted search. But yes, we are not (today) a drop-in replacement for ES. We have many migrations from ES/OpenSearch and users find that converting their code over is well worth the savings in maintenance, no-ETL and increased uptime, though. That said, we may one day add ES API compatibility if we can :)

is there a place where I can read about what ParadeDB actually does? Surely you do more than just pre-install the extensions? Do you also develop the extensions yourself? Do you support RAG? The last question may not make sense as I am new to this space.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#97

Post by sedansesame »

pxc wrote: post #79
iaaan wrote: post #3

Every so often I run through the common set of licenses to double-check which one I want to personally use for my projects (both commercial and for fun), and I always end up back at AGPL. For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor.

> For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. A purely F/OSS company could potentially profit way more from your code than you do and still comply with the license. You'd be free to reincorporate their code back into yours, of course. But code isn't money.

That sounds proportionate to me. They get to make profits, and I get to use their improvements if they also benefit me.

This can foster more community than if MIT code were to be taken and locked behind closed doors, for profit and to no benefit for the devs that made it possible.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#98

Post by Tomte »

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…

> 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.

That‘s wrong. Free software is all about freedom for users. Stallman wrote whole essays explaining that.

Of course, back in his time, pretty much every user was also a programmer. But he is still very clear about that point, never writing about programmers when he means users.

It‘s also why people still fight their silly argument whether BSD or GPL is "freer". The BSD camp optimizes for developer freedom, the GPL for user freedom. Both camps think everybody sees the world their way (philosophically), so the other camp must be wrong and stupid.

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#99

Post by kazinator »

jenadine wrote: post #95
aeaa3 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ability to set up your own clone instance its completely meaningless Isn't that the whole point?

Yes. But that point doesn't help the users since they don't have the data.

It helps in strawman cases when users have the data, and the platform doesn't have social features. For instance, oh, an online photo editor used by the user in isolation, on either local files or easily downloadable files. User doesn't like that instance, so they find the AGPLed source code and run their own, bringing all their files.

(Why, in that situation, would the user be entitled to the custom modifications in that instance they are abandoning? If you don't like that instance for whatever reason, but like the features, tough luck. Code your own.)

Re: Why we picked AGPL

#100

Post by Dylan16807 »

aaron695 wrote: post #14
iaaan wrote: post #3

Every so often I run through the common set of licenses to double-check which one I want to personally use for my projects (both commercial and for fun), and I always end up back at AGPL. For me, it just strikes the right balance between open-source and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor.

> and restricting corporations from disproportionately profiting off of my labor. This is anti the ethos of GPL [1] And that's fine, you choose a list or rules that fitted with your wants, you don't have to respect A/GPL. But time and time again we see most people on HN not respecting the A/GPL ethos they clam to follow and not understanding what A/GPL will mean in practice. > disproportionately profiting Off Topic t…

It can't be anti and off topic at the same time.

I think trying to prevent disproportionate profit by big companies is plenty compatible with the ethos. The ethos of GPL is all about the end user, after all.

> would mean they are providing amazing resources

No it doesn't mean that.

Post reply on HN