4 ms·

Today we protect our libraries with the GPL, a different kind of horrible curse.

by greenshackle2 10y ago

reitanqild 10y ago
Upvoted because it was funny, not because it was right. I really struggle with AGPL however.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  I write GPL software for a living, I mean it in the best possible way. What's your problem with the AGPL? I'm pretty neutral on it myself, I havn't used it for my own projects but it seems like an ok license to have around for people who don't want their code used in locked up SaaS.
  - greendragon 10y ago
    I interpret a lot of AGPL projects I see as "we're willing to negotiate a secondary license to your private business". If you're the best in class (or just the only available public option) it can make sense as a way to try and make money. If there's a more liberally licensed substitution, however, it's probably best read as a "don't use me for your business" flag...
    - greenshackle2 10y ago
      Right, but, from a business perspective, the same argument goes for GPL vs permissive licenses; why use GPL if there's an Apache or BSD alternative. I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts. Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.
      - cortesoft 10y ago
        I don't really have a problem with this sort of practice, and I think it is reflective of the model I feel most companies should use: keep the core-to-your-business software for your company proprietary and open-source all non-core-to-your-business software. It is the only model that will help keep open-source alive and well funded. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Late but: Kudos to you. The reason I dislike AGPL is the confusion around it (I think I have seen it interpreted as both 1. Same as GPL only for web apps and 2. You must buy an exception or everything that ever communicates with it is also AGPL.)
- serge2k 10y ago
  AGPL seems like a completely logical extension of the GPL. Being in favour of one and not the other seems hypocritical to me. edit: I just looked it up on the GNU site. > However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement So much for user freedom being #1.
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    You already have to check the license of any code you use, not sure how this is an extra burden. You just have to decide once upfront if the particular project will be AGPL. At work some clients don't want the extra burden of the network distribution clause, when that's the case we don't use AGPL code; but that's precisely the point - the authors don't want them to be able to use the code on their server without sharing.

Today we protect our libraries with the GPL, a different kind of horrible curse.

reitanqild 10y ago

Upvoted because it was funny, not because it was right. I really struggle with AGPL however.

greenshackle2 10y ago
I write GPL software for a living, I mean it in the best possible way. What's your problem with the AGPL? I'm pretty neutral on it myself, I havn't used it for my own projects but it seems like an ok license to have around for people who don't want their code used in locked up SaaS.
- greendragon 10y ago
  I interpret a lot of AGPL projects I see as "we're willing to negotiate a secondary license to your private business". If you're the best in class (or just the only available public option) it can make sense as a way to try and make money. If there's a more liberally licensed substitution, however, it's probably best read as a "don't use me for your business" flag...
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    Right, but, from a business perspective, the same argument goes for GPL vs permissive licenses; why use GPL if there's an Apache or BSD alternative. I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts. Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      I don't really have a problem with this sort of practice, and I think it is reflective of the model I feel most companies should use: keep the core-to-your-business software for your company proprietary and open-source all non-core-to-your-business software. It is the only model that will help keep open-source alive and well funded. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Late but: Kudos to you. The reason I dislike AGPL is the confusion around it (I think I have seen it interpreted as both 1. Same as GPL only for web apps and 2. You must buy an exception or everything that ever communicates with it is also AGPL.)
serge2k 10y ago
AGPL seems like a completely logical extension of the GPL. Being in favour of one and not the other seems hypocritical to me. edit: I just looked it up on the GNU site. > However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement So much for user freedom being #1.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  You already have to check the license of any code you use, not sure how this is an extra burden. You just have to decide once upfront if the particular project will be AGPL. At work some clients don't want the extra burden of the network distribution clause, when that's the case we don't use AGPL code; but that's precisely the point - the authors don't want them to be able to use the code on their server without sharing.