3 ms·

This looks like another way of sharing stuff that big companies don't want you to share. I seem to recall this story not ending well in the past. And AGPL? - s

This looks like another way of sharing stuff that big companies don't want you to share. I seem to recall this story not ending well in the past. And AGPL? - such an unappealing license - it's the license for open source extremists.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Or just sharing private content you don't want the big companies to have.
- EGreg 9y ago
  AGPL is great for letting regular people host stuff without large companies taking over your project and giving it to their 100000000000000000 centralized user base.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - flukus 9y ago
    No it isn't, companies are able to do that if they want. AGPL just makes sure those companies release their modifications to your project.
    - EGreg 9y ago
      They usually have polices to not even touch AGPL.
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      Yes indeed. The implication from the other poster was that companies can't exploit the project and make derivatives without sharing their source code. That doesn't stop them, but it does make it possible for people to get the updates, self-host or create competing instances, which is a major check on the power that proprietary services have.
  - raggi 9y ago
    What projects have been taken over like this and still exist?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    My comment refers to the notion that users of MediaGoblin can store treasured private content without it being indexed and monetized by large providers. This is true regardless of which open source license is used, and I am a strong supporter of permissive licensing over copyleft. ;) I see nothing wrong with corporations building their proprietary platforms on top of open source software as long as I'm not required to use it.
- mrschwabe 9y ago
  Interesting that nathcd's comment (on this comment thread specifially) is 'dead'. Basically he explains politely and using analogy why AGPL seems just fine and then points out there seems to be a trend of anti-copyleft on HN lately. Subsequently his comment is now 'dead'... point proven?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Bear in mind, HN, beyond just being "tech news" is very connected to the startup culture by the very nature of being YC's. So there's a heck of a lot of business people around here, and businesses want to avoid licenses that lead to additional legal responsibility. It's particularly a liability if you're hoping another company will buy yours and integrate your software with theirs. Sometimes as an open source and privacy advocate, I feel like I'm in the minority here, along with a couple of other voices I see along the same lines as me. Though, I am pretty anti-copyleft as well. Go figure.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Perhaps that's why my comments advocating far left ideas afe frequently downvoted, even in on topic threads. Too many businesspeople :)
wyldfire 9y ago
I disagree -- regular ol' people generate way more video and audio content than the artists of RIAA+MPAA. If you want to distribute copyrighted content, there are much better solutions to that problem than Mediagoblin. But if you want to put a video of your class lecture somewhere students can see it, it could be a much better option than Youtube. Especially if your classes discuss works of art still protected by copyright. Even though it's your right to discuss it via fair use, who wants the headache of arguing with rightsholders and Google's bots? It's AGPL specifically because it's a GNU project. shrug if you want to write a BSD one, that's your right. IMO they're not extremists. I like the BSD license a lot. But I also think that sometimes some companies exploit software developed under BSD licenses and in those cases coders and users alike lose out. For that reason I think it's very appropriate that the GPL and AGPL exist.
nathcd 9y ago
Being that this is an end-user application (and not a library), what does the AGPL matter? Would you otherwise be releasing proprietary MediaGoblin extensions? Is it just me or are the copyleft digs increasing in number lately? The little jabs seem nearly as immature as outsiders requesting that FOSS maintainers rewrite their projects in different languages.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  For the record, I think mediagoblin should use whatever license they see fit. But the distinction between GPL and AGPL here matters. If mediagoblin were GPL you could use it to host better-than-youtube.com -- and subsequently add a hardware-accelerated-3d-folksonomy feature to your better-than-youtube.com instance. better-than-youtube.com's users would be [effectively] using a work derived from mediagoblin and yet they would not have access to its source because they were never distributed the binary. GNU created the AGPL to solve the problem created by the trend of "Software-as-a-service".
  - raggi 9y ago
    If you look at some of the installations listed in the wiki they have clearly been modified. They do not provide their modifications publicly, and are in violation of section 5. This is the core challenge with user modified agpl over user modified gpl. These users are unwittingly in violation - their acceptance of the license terms without understanding them leaving them in a position of legal risk.
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      The whole GPL family has no requirement of providing source publicly. The requirement is to make source available upon request to those who are the recipients of the software. > they have clearly been modified How do you know? Mediagoblin has lots of settings and prefs to adapt how it works. Anyway, the source-provision applies whether or not it's modified. It's the responsibility of any instance of Mediagoblin to provide source upon request to visitors of the instance. The source must match what is running. Modified or not is irrelevant. > unwittingly in violation Not at all. They will be in violation if you can access their instance and you ask them for the source and they refuse to give it to you.
quadrangle 9y ago
> AGPL … the license for open source extremists. Nonsense. The sort of people who appreciate the AGPL are the sort who either say or at least acknowledge that others say "it's free software, not open source". If you think AGPL is unappealing and that's as far as you take it besides asserting it being extreme, you don't understand the basic concept of software freedom, so you can't judge when someone is extreme about it or not.
hyperdunc 9y ago
The term "open-source extremists" is somewhat oxymoronic and reminds of the term "militant atheists". In real terms, neither category is particularly edgy.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Or just sharing private content you don't want the big companies to have.

EGreg 9y ago
AGPL is great for letting regular people host stuff without large companies taking over your project and giving it to their 100000000000000000 centralized user base.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- flukus 9y ago
  No it isn't, companies are able to do that if they want. AGPL just makes sure those companies release their modifications to your project.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    They usually have polices to not even touch AGPL.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    Yes indeed. The implication from the other poster was that companies can't exploit the project and make derivatives without sharing their source code. That doesn't stop them, but it does make it possible for people to get the updates, self-host or create competing instances, which is a major check on the power that proprietary services have.
- raggi 9y ago
  What projects have been taken over like this and still exist?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  My comment refers to the notion that users of MediaGoblin can store treasured private content without it being indexed and monetized by large providers. This is true regardless of which open source license is used, and I am a strong supporter of permissive licensing over copyleft. ;) I see nothing wrong with corporations building their proprietary platforms on top of open source software as long as I'm not required to use it.
mrschwabe 9y ago
Interesting that nathcd's comment (on this comment thread specifially) is 'dead'. Basically he explains politely and using analogy why AGPL seems just fine and then points out there seems to be a trend of anti-copyleft on HN lately. Subsequently his comment is now 'dead'... point proven?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Bear in mind, HN, beyond just being "tech news" is very connected to the startup culture by the very nature of being YC's. So there's a heck of a lot of business people around here, and businesses want to avoid licenses that lead to additional legal responsibility. It's particularly a liability if you're hoping another company will buy yours and integrate your software with theirs. Sometimes as an open source and privacy advocate, I feel like I'm in the minority here, along with a couple of other voices I see along the same lines as me. Though, I am pretty anti-copyleft as well. Go figure.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Perhaps that's why my comments advocating far left ideas afe frequently downvoted, even in on topic threads. Too many businesspeople :)

wyldfire 9y ago

I disagree -- regular ol' people generate way more video and audio content than the artists of RIAA+MPAA. If you want to distribute copyrighted content, there are much better solutions to that problem than Mediagoblin. But if you want to put a video of your class lecture somewhere students can see it, it could be a much better option than Youtube. Especially if your classes discuss works of art still protected by copyright. Even though it's your right to discuss it via fair use, who wants the headache of arguing with rightsholders and Google's bots? It's AGPL specifically because it's a GNU project. shrug if you want to write a BSD one, that's your right. IMO they're not extremists. I like the BSD license a lot. But I also think that sometimes some companies exploit software developed under BSD licenses and in those cases coders and users alike lose out. For that reason I think it's very appropriate that the GPL and AGPL exist.

nathcd 9y ago

Being that this is an end-user application (and not a library), what does the AGPL matter? Would you otherwise be releasing proprietary MediaGoblin extensions? Is it just me or are the copyleft digs increasing in number lately? The little jabs seem nearly as immature as outsiders requesting that FOSS maintainers rewrite their projects in different languages.

wyldfire 9y ago
For the record, I think mediagoblin should use whatever license they see fit. But the distinction between GPL and AGPL here matters. If mediagoblin were GPL you could use it to host better-than-youtube.com -- and subsequently add a hardware-accelerated-3d-folksonomy feature to your better-than-youtube.com instance. better-than-youtube.com's users would be [effectively] using a work derived from mediagoblin and yet they would not have access to its source because they were never distributed the binary. GNU created the AGPL to solve the problem created by the trend of "Software-as-a-service".
- raggi 9y ago
  If you look at some of the installations listed in the wiki they have clearly been modified. They do not provide their modifications publicly, and are in violation of section 5. This is the core challenge with user modified agpl over user modified gpl. These users are unwittingly in violation - their acceptance of the license terms without understanding them leaving them in a position of legal risk.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    The whole GPL family has no requirement of providing source publicly. The requirement is to make source available upon request to those who are the recipients of the software. > they have clearly been modified How do you know? Mediagoblin has lots of settings and prefs to adapt how it works. Anyway, the source-provision applies whether or not it's modified. It's the responsibility of any instance of Mediagoblin to provide source upon request to visitors of the instance. The source must match what is running. Modified or not is irrelevant. > unwittingly in violation Not at all. They will be in violation if you can access their instance and you ask them for the source and they refuse to give it to you.

quadrangle 9y ago

> AGPL … the license for open source extremists. Nonsense. The sort of people who appreciate the AGPL are the sort who either say or at least acknowledge that others say "it's free software, not open source". If you think AGPL is unappealing and that's as far as you take it besides asserting it being extreme, you don't understand the basic concept of software freedom, so you can't judge when someone is extreme about it or not.

hyperdunc 9y ago

The term "open-source extremists" is somewhat oxymoronic and reminds of the term "militant atheists". In real terms, neither category is particularly edgy.