7 ms·

If nobody uses a piece of software, its freedom is debatable. I don't know of anyone using agpl'd code to build software people use.

SamReidHughes 10y ago
You never heard of anybody using MongoDB?
- dsp1234 10y ago
  Note that the official MongoDB C driver is Apache licensed, which is what most developers would make a derivative work from. https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-c-driver/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-c-driver/blob/master/COPYIN...
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    RethinkDB's drivers are Apache licensed.
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
      FWIW that was part of the problem since that's a walking license violation go the AGPL by many interpretations. It's just that Mingo/Rethink violate their own license there. However any other client? Unclear.
      - manarth 10y ago
        [they] violate their own license Careful with the word "violate": as a copyright holder, you cannot violate your own license. The copyright holder has intrinsic rights; licenses are permission to extend a subset of rights to third parties.
- darfs 10y ago
  I don't think that's even possible today, if you arent born on the Mars :-)
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  That's fine because Mongo is a company that plans on making money and holds the copyright. If it turns out AGPL is an issue they can relicense. The worry with RethinkDB was (at least mine and people I talked to) that it can become a liability if the AGPL turns out to be an issue since some third party owns the original copyright and then who knows what happens with future contributions.
- ralfn 10y ago
  Yeah, that would be a great example of AGPL used to FORCE many parties to PAY for a non-AGPL license. For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. I don't have a moral argument to make here -- just making sure people realize the actual trade-offs. AGPL is theoretically for a world where closed source software is simply not allowed to co-exist with opensource, even if you don't distribute it, but simply run it / host it / use it. But that world doesn't exist, so it does the opposite: it is actually used to make sure some of your users have to pay. It enables a business model.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    > AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Citation needed.
  - jdelaney 10y ago
    > For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. I don't think that's correct. From MongoDB the company[0]: > Note however that it is NOT required that applications using mongo be published. The copyleft applies only to the mongod and mongos database programs. This is why Mongo DB drivers are all licensed under an Apache license. You application, even though it talks to the database, is a separate program and “work”. [0] https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl
- snuxoll 10y ago
  @ralfn > For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. AGPL licenses aren't transitive, things that touch AGPL'ed software over the network aren't suddenly required to be AGPL licensed (otherwise the whole purpose of it would fall apart, since a large chunk of the initial design was for Free Software web-applications which could still be run in proprietary web browsers). AGPL means if you decide to fork a project and add new features, then sell it as a hosted service ala AWS/Azure then you also have to provide anyone that connects to it your modified source code. I'm actually debating using the license right now in a couple of projects I've been prototyping - I don't want to prevent people from being able to make money offering hosted services, but at the same time I don't want hostile SaaS forks that could rip off my work without contributing their changes back (I like the BSD license for libraries, but I'm starting to appreciate the GPL/AGPL more for applications for community-related reasons rather than free software righteousness).
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > AGPL licenses aren't transitive, things that touch AGPL'ed software over the network aren't suddenly required to be AGPL licensed (otherwise the whole purpose of it would fall apart, since a large chunk of the initial design was for Free Software web-applications which could still be run in proprietary web browsers). That is not necessarily true in the case of the database due to how the drivers work. This would need to be tested in court. It's unclear by the license terms alone.
    - Drdrdrq 10y ago
      Note that MongoDB clarified their understanding of AGPL in no uncertain terms [0] so they would have trouble dragging someone who developed apps using their DB to court and demanding opensourcing of the app. Without such clarification from their side we would never have touched MongoDB. [0] https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl
      - 10y ago
EGreg 10y ago
We rationally and happily chose AGPL for our platform. I advise everyone to do the same in my longer comment on this page. You can ask me why by replying to it.
icebraining 10y ago
Very large companies and governmental entities are using AGPL-licensed copies of OpenERP (now Odoo). In my experience, working for a company that provided services based on it, the license was never a problem.

SamReidHughes 10y ago

You never heard of anybody using MongoDB?

dsp1234 10y ago
Note that the official MongoDB C driver is Apache licensed, which is what most developers would make a derivative work from. https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-c-driver/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-c-driver/blob/master/COPYIN...
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  RethinkDB's drivers are Apache licensed.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    FWIW that was part of the problem since that's a walking license violation go the AGPL by many interpretations. It's just that Mingo/Rethink violate their own license there. However any other client? Unclear.
    - manarth 10y ago
      [they] violate their own license Careful with the word "violate": as a copyright holder, you cannot violate your own license. The copyright holder has intrinsic rights; licenses are permission to extend a subset of rights to third parties.
darfs 10y ago
I don't think that's even possible today, if you arent born on the Mars :-)
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
That's fine because Mongo is a company that plans on making money and holds the copyright. If it turns out AGPL is an issue they can relicense. The worry with RethinkDB was (at least mine and people I talked to) that it can become a liability if the AGPL turns out to be an issue since some third party owns the original copyright and then who knows what happens with future contributions.
ralfn 10y ago
Yeah, that would be a great example of AGPL used to FORCE many parties to PAY for a non-AGPL license. For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. I don't have a moral argument to make here -- just making sure people realize the actual trade-offs. AGPL is theoretically for a world where closed source software is simply not allowed to co-exist with opensource, even if you don't distribute it, but simply run it / host it / use it. But that world doesn't exist, so it does the opposite: it is actually used to make sure some of your users have to pay. It enables a business model.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  > AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Citation needed.
- jdelaney 10y ago
  > For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. I don't think that's correct. From MongoDB the company[0]: > Note however that it is NOT required that applications using mongo be published. The copyleft applies only to the mongod and mongos database programs. This is why Mongo DB drivers are all licensed under an Apache license. You application, even though it talks to the database, is a separate program and “work”. [0] https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl
snuxoll 10y ago
@ralfn > For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All of it. Or pay to get a different license. AGPL licenses aren't transitive, things that touch AGPL'ed software over the network aren't suddenly required to be AGPL licensed (otherwise the whole purpose of it would fall apart, since a large chunk of the initial design was for Free Software web-applications which could still be run in proprietary web browsers). AGPL means if you decide to fork a project and add new features, then sell it as a hosted service ala AWS/Azure then you also have to provide anyone that connects to it your modified source code. I'm actually debating using the license right now in a couple of projects I've been prototyping - I don't want to prevent people from being able to make money offering hosted services, but at the same time I don't want hostile SaaS forks that could rip off my work without contributing their changes back (I like the BSD license for libraries, but I'm starting to appreciate the GPL/AGPL more for applications for community-related reasons rather than free software righteousness).
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  > AGPL licenses aren't transitive, things that touch AGPL'ed software over the network aren't suddenly required to be AGPL licensed (otherwise the whole purpose of it would fall apart, since a large chunk of the initial design was for Free Software web-applications which could still be run in proprietary web browsers). That is not necessarily true in the case of the database due to how the drivers work. This would need to be tested in court. It's unclear by the license terms alone.
  - Drdrdrq 10y ago
    Note that MongoDB clarified their understanding of AGPL in no uncertain terms [0] so they would have trouble dragging someone who developed apps using their DB to court and demanding opensourcing of the app. Without such clarification from their side we would never have touched MongoDB. [0] https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl
    - 10y ago

EGreg 10y ago

We rationally and happily chose AGPL for our platform. I advise everyone to do the same in my longer comment on this page. You can ask me why by replying to it.

icebraining 10y ago

Very large companies and governmental entities are using AGPL-licensed copies of OpenERP (now Odoo). In my experience, working for a company that provided services based on it, the license was never a problem.