3 ms·

> 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 mu

by 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.
- snuxoll 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. Why would it? The AGPL isn't designed to disincentive people from providing hosted services based on a particular piece of software, but to ensure those that do it can't make proprietary modifications that break the spirit of the GPL while technically being in compliance. You aren't asked to do anything beyond what the GPL already requires, it just defines that users accessing the covered software over the network have the same freedoms as those who instally it locally do. > 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.). Again, the AGPL doesn't impair any of these. The only addition to the GPL is you can't turn a GPL'ed program or binary into a "service" and bypass the spirit of the GPL while still being in technical compliance. Sure, if what you want your differentiation to be is proprietary value-added features then you're going to be in a sore spot - but again, that's breaking the spirit of the license. > 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. Put it up on github and link to it, it's as simple as that. The GPL and the AGPL don't have overly strict requirements on how the source code is distributed, only that you must make it available. Most AGPL'ed web applications I've seen provide a link in their footer to the source code, if you modify the source you must provide your users a way to gain access to your modifications. As a note: I'm not some cultist that blindly follows the FSF. I usually prefer BSD/MIT licenses in anything I work on, but as someone who is looking at starting some projects that could potentially be SaaS-ified the AGPL is a very appealing choice in some ways - applications and libraries have different licensing requirements in my eyes, when it comes to a library I just want people to be able to not re-invent the wheel, when it comes to applications I want users of the software and the community around it to not be at risk of a proprietary vendor destroying the community.
  - 10y ago

by snuxoll 10y ago

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.

snuxoll 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. Why would it? The AGPL isn't designed to disincentive people from providing hosted services based on a particular piece of software, but to ensure those that do it can't make proprietary modifications that break the spirit of the GPL while technically being in compliance. You aren't asked to do anything beyond what the GPL already requires, it just defines that users accessing the covered software over the network have the same freedoms as those who instally it locally do. > 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.). Again, the AGPL doesn't impair any of these. The only addition to the GPL is you can't turn a GPL'ed program or binary into a "service" and bypass the spirit of the GPL while still being in technical compliance. Sure, if what you want your differentiation to be is proprietary value-added features then you're going to be in a sore spot - but again, that's breaking the spirit of the license. > 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. Put it up on github and link to it, it's as simple as that. The GPL and the AGPL don't have overly strict requirements on how the source code is distributed, only that you must make it available. Most AGPL'ed web applications I've seen provide a link in their footer to the source code, if you modify the source you must provide your users a way to gain access to your modifications. As a note: I'm not some cultist that blindly follows the FSF. I usually prefer BSD/MIT licenses in anything I work on, but as someone who is looking at starting some projects that could potentially be SaaS-ified the AGPL is a very appealing choice in some ways - applications and libraries have different licensing requirements in my eyes, when it comes to a library I just want people to be able to not re-invent the wheel, when it comes to applications I want users of the software and the community around it to not be at risk of a proprietary vendor destroying the community.
- 10y ago