4 ms·

@ralfn > For example, imagine Digital Ocean using MongoDB to store server configurations. AGPL would force them to open-source their whole infrastructure. All

by 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
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    That's why I said in the past that the AGPL was not a huge concern for as long as a commercial entity stands behind RethinkDB. Once that broke away who knows what individual contributors think of what the AGPL means (let alone a judge).
    - snuxoll 10y ago
      The AGPL makes this explicitly clear: > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. Users interacting with the modified program over the network have a right to access the modified source, there's absolutely nothing about the client software (database drivers, web browsers, etc) accessing it being considered part of a combined work. You can access a AGPL licensed database or whatever from a proprietary application with absolutely no issue, you just can't modify the AGPL'ed work, expose it to users other than yourself, and not share your modifications. Do yourself a favor, grab https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt and run `diff` on them, this is literally the only substantive difference in the entire license text.
      - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

by snuxoll 10y ago

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
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  That's why I said in the past that the AGPL was not a huge concern for as long as a commercial entity stands behind RethinkDB. Once that broke away who knows what individual contributors think of what the AGPL means (let alone a judge).
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    The AGPL makes this explicitly clear: > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. Users interacting with the modified program over the network have a right to access the modified source, there's absolutely nothing about the client software (database drivers, web browsers, etc) accessing it being considered part of a combined work. You can access a AGPL licensed database or whatever from a proprietary application with absolutely no issue, you just can't modify the AGPL'ed work, expose it to users other than yourself, and not share your modifications. Do yourself a favor, grab https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt and run `diff` on them, this is literally the only substantive difference in the entire license text.
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago