3 ms·

> If I run a public-facing, auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to make source available to anyone who connects to it? Yes, that is precisely what

by snuxoll 10y ago

> If I run a public-facing, auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to make source available to anyone who connects to it? Yes, that is precisely what the AGPL means. If you have some proprietary web application that is the user of RethinkDB that your users connect to instead, then no, since the modifications are only used internally by you. The goal here is to prevent SaaS-ification of AGPL'ed applications, if you host an application under the license and make it available to others you can't hide your changes just because the users aren't directly installing the binaries. > If my build system sucks (and most build systems do suck), am I legally liable for not providing a working build script that a third party can use, even if every patch I have is in a public bugtracker? The A/GPL does require you provide the neccesary tooling or instructions to build the source, so, yes. > In the same way, it's entirely reasonable for organizations to determine that for a specific use case, both simple permissive licenses and GPL-style licenses are fine, but AGPL-style ones aren't. If you're trying to make money off the backs of GPL'ed software by making modifications to it and then throwing it behind a service so you don't technically have to redistribute your changes then, yes, you should be wary of the AGPL. You should also feel ashamed of yourself. That being said, there's some projects licensed under the AGPL that have given me pause, like GhostScript. I've had to yank that out of projects, because even though they are used internally-only, we are linking to the code which means the project as a whole becomes AGPL licensed. Things like MongoDB/RethinkDB are non-issues since they are only being accessed over the network, the client can be licensed under whatever they damn well want.

geofft 10y ago
> if you host an application under the license and make it available to others you can't hide your changes just because the users aren't directly installing the binaries. For the auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to provide source to the entire internet because everyone can connect to it? > The A/GPL does require you provide the neccesary tooling or instructions to build the source, so, yes. The GPL does not require me to provide build tooling / instructions to people who merely use the product, only recipients of the built code. If I don't distribute it, I'm not obligated to do a good job with my build tooling. If I port RethinkDB to some proprietary OS where I'm not allowed to redistribute the build tooling, am I effectively forbidden from running it in a public-facing way? Does that conflict with "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? I'm fine with being ashamed. None of the four freedoms, none of the requirements of the open source definition, require me not to be ashamed. I'm fine with assuaging my shame by donating money or resources as needed. But the AGPL seems to be constraining my technical decision-making by saying that I either have to put non-AGPL layers in front of AGPL code or I have to use a good-quality, free software build toolchain.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  > For the auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to provide source to the entire internet because everyone can connect to it? Anyone who can use it must be granted the source. Whether the ability to open a socket connection counts or not is up for debate. Note, the GPL doesn't require you provide the sources gratis, you can charge reasonable cost of distribution so you aren't eating the bandwidth bill. You could also just provide a link to your github repository. > The GPL does not require me to provide build tooling / instructions to people who merely use the product, only recipients of the built code. If I don't distribute it, I'm not obligated to do a good job with my build tooling. > > If I port RethinkDB to some proprietary OS where I'm not allowed to redistribute the build tooling, am I effectively forbidden from running it in a public-facing way? With the AGPL users are effectively recipients of the built code. So, yes, if you are unable to provide your build scripts (note, the tools you call to build do not have to be open source, but the instructions/scripts used to build must be) then you are forbidden from using the product. > Does that conflict with "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? The A/GPL is designed to protect the freedoms of users, the AGPL changes the definition of user from "the person executing the binary" to "the person interacting with the software". The change of this definition doesn't conflict with that, it clarifies the intent of this freedom when a project chooses the AGPL over the traditional GPL license.
  - geofft 10y ago
    So I think that, if that's how the AGPL defines "user", had RethinkDB continued to be AGPL, I'd be disincentivized from setting up and sysadminning a multi-tenant RethinkDB instance and more incentivized to provide scripts for people to run their own instance. There are reasons that's good (in theory, users will have more control over their own computing), but also reasons that's bad (you don't get economies of scale, you don't get someone dealing with security updates for you, you probably have to pay more, etc.). And it seems to me that if we want to encourage designing systems a certain way, a legal document is probably not the tool for it. I think it'd be much better for free software if we spent time building tooling for non-AGPL software to serve its own complete corresponding source by default.

by snuxoll 10y ago

geofft 10y ago

> if you host an application under the license and make it available to others you can't hide your changes just because the users aren't directly installing the binaries. For the auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to provide source to the entire internet because everyone can connect to it? > The A/GPL does require you provide the neccesary tooling or instructions to build the source, so, yes. The GPL does not require me to provide build tooling / instructions to people who merely use the product, only recipients of the built code. If I don't distribute it, I'm not obligated to do a good job with my build tooling. If I port RethinkDB to some proprietary OS where I'm not allowed to redistribute the build tooling, am I effectively forbidden from running it in a public-facing way? Does that conflict with "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? I'm fine with being ashamed. None of the four freedoms, none of the requirements of the open source definition, require me not to be ashamed. I'm fine with assuaging my shame by donating money or resources as needed. But the AGPL seems to be constraining my technical decision-making by saying that I either have to put non-AGPL layers in front of AGPL code or I have to use a good-quality, free software build toolchain.

snuxoll 10y ago
> For the auth-requiring RethinkDB server, am I obligated to provide source to the entire internet because everyone can connect to it? Anyone who can use it must be granted the source. Whether the ability to open a socket connection counts or not is up for debate. Note, the GPL doesn't require you provide the sources gratis, you can charge reasonable cost of distribution so you aren't eating the bandwidth bill. You could also just provide a link to your github repository. > The GPL does not require me to provide build tooling / instructions to people who merely use the product, only recipients of the built code. If I don't distribute it, I'm not obligated to do a good job with my build tooling. > > If I port RethinkDB to some proprietary OS where I'm not allowed to redistribute the build tooling, am I effectively forbidden from running it in a public-facing way? With the AGPL users are effectively recipients of the built code. So, yes, if you are unable to provide your build scripts (note, the tools you call to build do not have to be open source, but the instructions/scripts used to build must be) then you are forbidden from using the product. > Does that conflict with "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? The A/GPL is designed to protect the freedoms of users, the AGPL changes the definition of user from "the person executing the binary" to "the person interacting with the software". The change of this definition doesn't conflict with that, it clarifies the intent of this freedom when a project chooses the AGPL over the traditional GPL license.
- geofft 10y ago
  So I think that, if that's how the AGPL defines "user", had RethinkDB continued to be AGPL, I'd be disincentivized from setting up and sysadminning a multi-tenant RethinkDB instance and more incentivized to provide scripts for people to run their own instance. There are reasons that's good (in theory, users will have more control over their own computing), but also reasons that's bad (you don't get economies of scale, you don't get someone dealing with security updates for you, you probably have to pay more, etc.). And it seems to me that if we want to encourage designing systems a certain way, a legal document is probably not the tool for it. I think it'd be much better for free software if we spent time building tooling for non-AGPL software to serve its own complete corresponding source by default.