5 ms·

Any sources behind the claim that agpl is behind the lack of success for rethinkdb? I am very bullish about agpl. As far as I understand, the choice of agpl ha

by 3825 10y ago

Any sources behind the claim that agpl is behind the lack of success for rethinkdb? I am very bullish about agpl. As far as I understand, the choice of agpl has no effect on your code which you put in a repository. Is that not the case?

scotu 10y ago
As I wrote in another comment here I'm really surprised by the shallow reasoning of fellow developers regarding AGPL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643645 I mean, I might not understand the finer legal details but thinking "all your code you see after using anything GPL has to be GPL" is really weird, did this people ever used a linux kernel? (yes I know GPL is different from AGPL and at a high level I also know what is different)
fadzlan 10y ago
Honest question, although on a bit different topic I guess. Does AGPL prevents some company creating Github like services for Pijul?
- kibwen 10y ago
  It does not prevent any company from creating a Pijulhub. However, if you make modifications to Pijul or link it as a library into other code, that code must be made open-source. (And note that GitHub doesn't even use the original git written by Linus, they wrote their own implementation, libgit2.)
  - qznc 10y ago
    Afaik libgit2 is a derivative of git. Anyways, for Pijul to be successful, there must be something like PijulHub. The bar is higher now. Thus, make it easy to build this hub!
    - kibwen 10y ago
      Being open-source doesn't make it any harder to build a centralized source code hosting site, it just makes it harder to get VC funding. :P
    - ben0x539 10y ago
      It sounds like the authors' motivation is to create something that doesn't need a central hub to compete, to fight centralization. I expect their idea of success is also very different from github's.
- lvh 10y ago
  There is serious disagreement between serious legal scholars (Moglen, Rosen) about what kind of cooperation between components would trigger (A)GPL virality clauses. Linking counts according to one, but not the other; IIUC everyone agrees subprocesses don't count. So, assuming said company would not want to AGPL their code (and assuming they don't distribute binaries), that choice would imply some technical decisions they would presumably not be very happy about, but overall: no.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  Not really it just means the ticket tracking/wiki/etc... features can't get so cozy with pijul that they become 'derivative works'.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  I think the problem with the AGPL is that we don't know. The virality of the AGPL hasn't really been tested in courts of law yet, and it is easy to assume the worst, especially if you consider trying to need to explain AGPL terms to lawyers in a court case, much less a potentially non-technical juror.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > Does AGPL prevents some company creating Github like services for Pijul? Not at all, if their service is AGPL licensed. Of course, many companies may not want to use AGPL, and there's a whole lot of discussion on this page regarding what might/might-not be allowed to work around the AGPL. However, I didn't see anyone mention the possibility of, you know, using the AGPL, which is the entire reason the authors chose it ;)
lvh 10y ago
Define "your code which you put in a repository"? Disclaimer: IANAL. AGPL enforcement is generally a little unclear. If you ship a binary, you have to make the source available. If your binary answers on the wire but you don't ship it you (under the APL) have to make the source available. So, uh, yes -- as long as you never use it, which seems a little silly of a definition?
- gpm 10y ago
  > Define "your code which you put in a repository"? ... Code you add with the equivalent of `git add; git commit`. I.e. suppose git was AGPL instead of GPL, that would have no effect on the license of say, Rust (MIT+Apache) regardless of the fact that git is used in the development.
  - lvh 10y ago
    My apologies, I completely misunderstood your question. Again, (A)GPL enforcement is unclear and subject of real debate, but my understanding is that nobody thinks virality impacts data being used by the program (e.g. source code in a VCS).

by 3825 10y ago

scotu 10y ago

As I wrote in another comment here I'm really surprised by the shallow reasoning of fellow developers regarding AGPL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643645 I mean, I might not understand the finer legal details but thinking "all your code you see after using anything GPL has to be GPL" is really weird, did this people ever used a linux kernel? (yes I know GPL is different from AGPL and at a high level I also know what is different)

fadzlan 10y ago

Honest question, although on a bit different topic I guess. Does AGPL prevents some company creating Github like services for Pijul?

kibwen 10y ago
It does not prevent any company from creating a Pijulhub. However, if you make modifications to Pijul or link it as a library into other code, that code must be made open-source. (And note that GitHub doesn't even use the original git written by Linus, they wrote their own implementation, libgit2.)
- qznc 10y ago
  Afaik libgit2 is a derivative of git. Anyways, for Pijul to be successful, there must be something like PijulHub. The bar is higher now. Thus, make it easy to build this hub!
  - kibwen 10y ago
    Being open-source doesn't make it any harder to build a centralized source code hosting site, it just makes it harder to get VC funding. :P
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    It sounds like the authors' motivation is to create something that doesn't need a central hub to compete, to fight centralization. I expect their idea of success is also very different from github's.
lvh 10y ago
There is serious disagreement between serious legal scholars (Moglen, Rosen) about what kind of cooperation between components would trigger (A)GPL virality clauses. Linking counts according to one, but not the other; IIUC everyone agrees subprocesses don't count. So, assuming said company would not want to AGPL their code (and assuming they don't distribute binaries), that choice would imply some technical decisions they would presumably not be very happy about, but overall: no.
Avshalom 10y ago
Not really it just means the ticket tracking/wiki/etc... features can't get so cozy with pijul that they become 'derivative works'.
WorldMaker 10y ago
I think the problem with the AGPL is that we don't know. The virality of the AGPL hasn't really been tested in courts of law yet, and it is easy to assume the worst, especially if you consider trying to need to explain AGPL terms to lawyers in a court case, much less a potentially non-technical juror.
chriswarbo 10y ago
> Does AGPL prevents some company creating Github like services for Pijul? Not at all, if their service is AGPL licensed. Of course, many companies may not want to use AGPL, and there's a whole lot of discussion on this page regarding what might/might-not be allowed to work around the AGPL. However, I didn't see anyone mention the possibility of, you know, using the AGPL, which is the entire reason the authors chose it ;)

lvh 10y ago

Define "your code which you put in a repository"? Disclaimer: IANAL. AGPL enforcement is generally a little unclear. If you ship a binary, you have to make the source available. If your binary answers on the wire but you don't ship it you (under the APL) have to make the source available. So, uh, yes -- as long as you never use it, which seems a little silly of a definition?

gpm 10y ago
> Define "your code which you put in a repository"? ... Code you add with the equivalent of `git add; git commit`. I.e. suppose git was AGPL instead of GPL, that would have no effect on the license of say, Rust (MIT+Apache) regardless of the fact that git is used in the development.
- lvh 10y ago
  My apologies, I completely misunderstood your question. Again, (A)GPL enforcement is unclear and subject of real debate, but my understanding is that nobody thinks virality impacts data being used by the program (e.g. source code in a VCS).