4 ms·

If a BigCorp is to use AGPL code, it needs to erect internal barriers (on code search, etc) to ensure that said code does not find its way into other projects.

If a BigCorp is to use AGPL code, it needs to erect internal barriers (on code search, etc) to ensure that said code does not find its way into other projects. Those internal barriers usually incur a cost that outweighs whatever benefit the code provides, relative to unencumbered alternatives. If you say "we don't plan to patch the code, just use the binaries as-is" then you're asserting that the software today your needs forever into the future. That's a terribly foolish bet. A business founded on a principle of radical openness might be compatible with AGPL. But any business that wants to have some internal software (HR, etc) is well advised to stay the hell away from AGPL.

tom_mellior 10y ago
> If a BigCorp is to use AGPL code, it needs to erect internal barriers (on code search, etc) to ensure that said code does not find its way into other projects. Yes, but this has nothing in particular to do with the AGPL and everything to do with copyright laws. There is no licence except public domain/CC-0 that allows BigCorp to incorporate other people's code without any obligations whatsoever (attribution, at least). Copyright laws forbid such incorporation by default.
chriswarbo 10y ago
> If you say "we don't plan to patch the code, just use the binaries as-is" then you're asserting that the software today your needs forever into the future. That's a terribly foolish bet. I agree; one of the many reasons I'm against proprietary software is that it forces users into this helpless situation. I don't quite get the "internal barriers" idea; is it common for companies to mix together code from multiple projects, including ones they don't own, such that it's difficult to disentangle them? Regarding your example, why would copy/pasting code from an internal code search be treated any differently from, say, searchcode.com? A modicum of diligence is always required regarding ownership, licensing, appropriateness, trust, etc.

tom_mellior 10y ago

> If a BigCorp is to use AGPL code, it needs to erect internal barriers (on code search, etc) to ensure that said code does not find its way into other projects. Yes, but this has nothing in particular to do with the AGPL and everything to do with copyright laws. There is no licence except public domain/CC-0 that allows BigCorp to incorporate other people's code without any obligations whatsoever (attribution, at least). Copyright laws forbid such incorporation by default.

chriswarbo 10y ago

> If you say "we don't plan to patch the code, just use the binaries as-is" then you're asserting that the software today your needs forever into the future. That's a terribly foolish bet. I agree; one of the many reasons I'm against proprietary software is that it forces users into this helpless situation. I don't quite get the "internal barriers" idea; is it common for companies to mix together code from multiple projects, including ones they don't own, such that it's difficult to disentangle them? Regarding your example, why would copy/pasting code from an internal code search be treated any differently from, say, searchcode.com? A modicum of diligence is always required regarding ownership, licensing, appropriateness, trust, etc.