4 ms·

What's a practical example of this?

by YCode 9y ago

anon1385 9y ago
Anything under the AGPL. For example just running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers would open them up to having to open source the entire of Google search. That's why Google has banned the AGPL: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
- cm2187 9y ago
  Actually here is a practical example of the sort of annoyance resulting from FOSS licenses. Google developped an excellent library that they open sourced called Google OR Tools [1]. It not only provides access to Google's in house linear programming optimiser, but also acts as a wrapper around other solvers, some free, some commercial, so that you just change a parameter to try another solver. However because of conflicting licenses or licenses restrictions, google cannot distribute binaries that include certain FOSS solvers, like GLPK. So to be able to use GLPK you need to recompile the whole project yourself. If you go on the Google OR tool forum, you will see that it's not a simple CTR+SHIFT+B, everyone is struggling, and I wasted a lot of time trying to do this. That's what I mean by strings attached. [1] https://developers.google.com/optimization/ https://developers.google.com/optimization/
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers ... entire of Google search This is misinformed fear mongering (or maybe FUD?). The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program, if you modified[2] it, to anyone using the program over a network. Merely using an unmodified AGPL licensed program doesn't require anything. Just like other GPL-family licenses, the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. Similar risks would apply to including proprietary code, too. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
  - anon1385 9y ago
    >The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program The entire definition of "corresponding source" in the AGPLv3 is identical to the language from the equivalent section of the GPLv3 (and it also includes the same "based on" language and section on aggregates) which is intended to apply to dynamically linked libraries, and it has been widely interpreted that way. If the software would be a single work as defined by the GPLv3 when distributed on a physical CD then it would be covered by the AGPLv3 when accessed over a network. > the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. All GPL family licences are effectively EULAs because it's the GPL licence that grants the user permission to run the software, without that permission the user would be violating copyright by copying the program into RAM to execute it >The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. The Google policy prohibits use or even installation. From the link: >Do not attempt to check AGPL-licensed code into google3 or use it in a Google product in any way. >Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone As far as I know Google uses a single repository for nearly everything, which is why they are so keen to avoid AGPL code coming anywhere near it. Using AGPL code at Google necessitates "adding" it to the single huge google repo.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    Google wouldn't really care if they had to provide the source to an unmodified copy of such a program, of course. It's about their own modifications.

What's a practical example of this?

by YCode 9y ago

What's a practical example of this?

Anything under the AGPL. For example just running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers would open them up to having to open source the entire of Google search. That's why Google has banned the AGPL: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/

cm2187 9y ago
Actually here is a practical example of the sort of annoyance resulting from FOSS licenses. Google developped an excellent library that they open sourced called Google OR Tools [1]. It not only provides access to Google's in house linear programming optimiser, but also acts as a wrapper around other solvers, some free, some commercial, so that you just change a parameter to try another solver. However because of conflicting licenses or licenses restrictions, google cannot distribute binaries that include certain FOSS solvers, like GLPK. So to be able to use GLPK you need to recompile the whole project yourself. If you go on the Google OR tool forum, you will see that it's not a simple CTR+SHIFT+B, everyone is struggling, and I wasted a lot of time trying to do this. That's what I mean by strings attached. [1] https://developers.google.com/optimization/ https://developers.google.com/optimization/
pdkl95 9y ago
> running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers ... entire of Google search This is misinformed fear mongering (or maybe FUD?). The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program, if you modified[2] it, to anyone using the program over a network. Merely using an unmodified AGPL licensed program doesn't require anything. Just like other GPL-family licenses, the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. Similar risks would apply to including proprietary code, too. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
- anon1385 9y ago
  >The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program The entire definition of "corresponding source" in the AGPLv3 is identical to the language from the equivalent section of the GPLv3 (and it also includes the same "based on" language and section on aggregates) which is intended to apply to dynamically linked libraries, and it has been widely interpreted that way. If the software would be a single work as defined by the GPLv3 when distributed on a physical CD then it would be covered by the AGPLv3 when accessed over a network. > the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. All GPL family licences are effectively EULAs because it's the GPL licence that grants the user permission to run the software, without that permission the user would be violating copyright by copying the program into RAM to execute it >The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. The Google policy prohibits use or even installation. From the link: >Do not attempt to check AGPL-licensed code into google3 or use it in a Google product in any way. >Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone As far as I know Google uses a single repository for nearly everything, which is why they are so keen to avoid AGPL code coming anywhere near it. Using AGPL code at Google necessitates "adding" it to the single huge google repo.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  Google wouldn't really care if they had to provide the source to an unmodified copy of such a program, of course. It's about their own modifications.