3 ms·

I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyr

by blasdel 17y ago

I'm constantly struck by just how much of a turd the AGPL is -- it's a baldfaced EULA! It takes a huge leap beyond what is enforceable via straightforward copyright law and wallows right into the deep end of clickwrap licenses (the GPLv3 bullshit at least still hinges upon distribution). With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not have to accept the terms of the GPL to use your software, it's right there in the text of the license, so don't you dare make me click an 'I accept' checkbox. With the AGPL it's absolutely necessary to do this, because I don't actually have The freedom to run the program, for any purpose The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy. The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit directly from this work -- as you still retain copyright by default. Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking? It seems to me like either answer would show how poorly considered it is as a license.

jmillikin 17y ago
The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy. I doubt he approves now. I've not been able to find a single essay or even email from him regarding the AGPL, which is interesting considering his standard evangelism regarding other licenses. And he regards SaaS as non-free, regardless of whether the source is available. Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking? There's no legal precedent (that I know of) for the GPL being transitive across dynamic linking, and if it is, that opens a number of legal problems when linking with Free implementations of proprietary APIs. Static linking is, of course, still covered under standard copyright. From my non-lawyer reading of the AGPL, it does transit between processes and systems because it covers the output of the application.
- blasdel 17y ago
  his public silence is odd -- but given that the GPLv3 contains a clause explicitly granting an exemption for use with the AGPL, and the degree to which the FSF is essentially an extension of his person, he must approve in some sense.
tptacek 17y ago
I don't understand the ferocity of your opinion about the AGPL. Its objectives are reasonable: "don't use my software as part of a closed-source commercial web app". Virtually every piece of commercial closed-source software is distributed under terms that are strictly more restrictive than the AGPL, and the AGPL's objectives are --- unlike those of commercial vendors --- benevolent. Finally, licenses aren't in competition. They're just tools. You use the one that supports your objectives.
- tentonova 17y ago
  I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well. I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license. You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company." How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL. You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users. I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her code, her terms. The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (shudder readline), but it has never seemed unfair.
    - tentonova 17y ago
      I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence". I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business. The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to fund ongoing development.
adulau 17y ago
While making a diff of the AGPL version 3 and GPL version 3, I can't see the point where you are not allowed to run the program. Can you point us to the respective part of the text assuming that fact? Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the execution of the software. diff -u gpl-3.0.txt agpl-3.0.txt This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the - GNU General Public License for more details. + GNU Affero General Public License for more details. - You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. - If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short -notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: - - <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> - This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. - This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it - under certain conditions; type `show c' for details. - -The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate -parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands -might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box". + If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer +network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to +get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its +interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive +of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different +solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the +specific requirements. You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. -For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see +For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. - - The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program -into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you -may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with -the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General -Public License instead of this License. But first, please read -<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

by blasdel 17y ago

jmillikin 17y ago

The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy. I doubt he approves now. I've not been able to find a single essay or even email from him regarding the AGPL, which is interesting considering his standard evangelism regarding other licenses. And he regards SaaS as non-free, regardless of whether the source is available. Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking? There's no legal precedent (that I know of) for the GPL being transitive across dynamic linking, and if it is, that opens a number of legal problems when linking with Free implementations of proprietary APIs. Static linking is, of course, still covered under standard copyright. From my non-lawyer reading of the AGPL, it does transit between processes and systems because it covers the output of the application.

blasdel 17y ago
his public silence is odd -- but given that the GPLv3 contains a clause explicitly granting an exemption for use with the AGPL, and the degree to which the FSF is essentially an extension of his person, he must approve in some sense.

tptacek 17y ago

I don't understand the ferocity of your opinion about the AGPL. Its objectives are reasonable: "don't use my software as part of a closed-source commercial web app". Virtually every piece of commercial closed-source software is distributed under terms that are strictly more restrictive than the AGPL, and the AGPL's objectives are --- unlike those of commercial vendors --- benevolent. Finally, licenses aren't in competition. They're just tools. You use the one that supports your objectives.

tentonova 17y ago
I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether you want to also release all the source to your own code as well. I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license. You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company." How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).
- tptacek 17y ago
  Commercial license: not only do you not have the right to use my software without accepting my terms, but you will pay me, probably per-core. That's strictly worse than AGPL. You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users. I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her code, her terms. The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (shudder readline), but it has never seemed unfair.
  - tentonova 17y ago
    I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence". I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business. The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to fund ongoing development.

adulau 17y ago

While making a diff of the AGPL version 3 and GPL version 3, I can't see the point where you are not allowed to run the program. Can you point us to the respective part of the text assuming that fact? Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the execution of the software. diff -u gpl-3.0.txt agpl-3.0.txt This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the - GNU General Public License for more details. + GNU Affero General Public License for more details. - You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. - If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short -notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: - - <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> - This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. - This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it - under certain conditions; type `show c' for details. - -The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate -parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands -might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box". + If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer +network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to +get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its +interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive +of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different +solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the +specific requirements. You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. -For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see +For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. - - The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program -into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you -may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with -the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General -Public License instead of this License. But first, please read -<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.