5 ms·

Ask HN: Your opinion on AGPL license

11 points by hippich 16y ago

I started to play with some open source software and was quickly told by author to keep all my code available to download on the same site as I am providing service. In my case this is not a problem, since it somewhat hobby project, but I thought about using my experience in future to deploy commercial projects using the same stack. Now I doubt. To make clear - it's poker-network software. It consist of server, which is AGPLv3, and client jPoker which is GPLv3. Author claims everything on the server side should be AGPLed too. But this also involves disclosing code for custom integration with other products as well. And if I would do commercial project, I will definitely need to do some custom stuff. There is still question if I communicate with server through API, will my server code, which in fact is also client, become automatically AGPL... Anyway, what do you think about AGPL license for open source projects in general keeping in mind that with so much SaaS projects, owners legally able to benefit from GPLed work while not giving back to community. Do you work with AGPL software deploying end product for client on his servers? How you deal with requirement to make code available to download?

devmonk 16y ago
"Ask NH"? Is this question for residents of New Hampshire only? Barring that, first off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License Basically, looks like FSF suggests that any software that would run over a network (like a web application, web service, etc.) should be AGPL rather than GPL. I like the MIT license, because while I love free software, I don't want businesses hindered from using it.
- hippich 16y ago
  Yeah, I agree. While I understand concerns about using open source software and never give back, I believe AGPL will never be adopted in commercial projects. And since no money will be involved, any AGPL project never get enough popularity to be successful. On the side note, anyone can mention successful AGPL project? I want to see how they adopt it in business.
- adulau 16y ago
  Copyleft type licenses (like AGPL or GPL) are also business friendly. They just choose different business model. There was also a discussion on the topic previously and especially how the non-copyleft licenses (like MIT or BSD-like) are not always contributing to the free software ecosystem: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1642140 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1642140
  - hippich 16y ago
    Do you have case for using AGPL software in business. I really want to understand how it could be done.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Gitorious is one company run purely on AGPL software (though they wrote much of it themselves). They seem to think their main value proposition is the service and hosting, so don't much care about having the code itself open. The choice of AGPL seems to be to make sure that any competitors that start from their codebase have to use the same strategy. That's not as freedom-friendly as just letting anyone use it for any purpose, but at the very least, it doesn't seem less free than the usual SaaS strategy of keeping your server-side code completely closed (what their competitor GitHub does).
  - evgen 16y ago
    Try naming a single business that uses AGPL. Claiming that AGPL is business friendly is pretty deceptive (i.e. it is business friendly provided that your business is not the sale of software or online services), but around here most people will see straight through the bullshit, chuckle a bit, and move on. The short version that everyone here who actually runs a business will tell you is that GPL is fine for most situations, but you should avoid anything that has the AGPL license for the core of your business unless you really have no other option.
    - martey 16y ago
      Status.Net (raised over $2 million in funding) uses the AGPL. Their software is similar to Twitter (they run http://identi.ca http://identi.ca), but they seem to be targeting the enterprise market: http://status.net/enterprise-network http://status.net/enterprise-network If I made my living selling desktop software, the benefit of using BSD licensed libraries without contributing back to the community would be obvious. The GPL has a similar status among web companies. As a consumer, however, I appreciate the choices that AGPL software give me (e.g. hosting the software on my own server, adding or removing features, etc.).
_delirium 16y ago
The short version is that the AGPL is like the GPL, except any code that you use to run public services is considered "distributed" in the same way that it would be if you had distributed it on a CD-ROM. Think of your thin-client AGPL-using webapps as if they were thick-client GPL-using desktop apps, and the requirements are roughly the same. That still leaves the same grey areas as in the GPL, which seems to be some of your questions: what exactly counts as an API, what counts as a derivative work versus a separate piece of software that communicates, etc. The intention though is usually to require you to AGPL any SaaS you build on top of the original AGPL'd code, the same way the GPL would require you to GPL any thick-client app you built on top of GPL'd code. That effect is usually intentional, because AGPLing code is sometimes used as an alternative to not releasing it at all. For example, Dropbox keeps their source code closed, partly to keep someone from being able to build a competing SaaS on it. Some people choose to AGPL it instead, as an in-between sort of route: people can now build a competing SaaS on your code, but they have to open-source any improvements, which you can then incorporate back into your own service, so at least they can't leapfrog ahead of you using your own code. I'd recommend that if your goal is to build a SaaS that has significant portions of its source code stay closed-source, you probably shouldn't use AGPL'd code.
runT1ME 16y ago
I like it. It's good if you're goal is to eventually sell dual licensed products. A company that is just using your product on the small scale shouldn't have a problem with sharing their code too. If a company has monetized it in a way that makes them protective of their code, you can sell them a commercial license.
jmillikin 16y ago
If you don't distribute portions of the software, then you don't need to worry about AGPL vs GPL vs whatever. Copyright licenses only apply when you perform some action which requires copyright permissions. Based on your post, I'm guessing the AGPL'd code simply listens on a socket, and doesn't send itself to the client. If this is true, then you don't need to do anything special to comply with it.

11 points by hippich 16y ago

devmonk 16y ago

"Ask NH"? Is this question for residents of New Hampshire only? Barring that, first off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License Basically, looks like FSF suggests that any software that would run over a network (like a web application, web service, etc.) should be AGPL rather than GPL. I like the MIT license, because while I love free software, I don't want businesses hindered from using it.

hippich 16y ago
Yeah, I agree. While I understand concerns about using open source software and never give back, I believe AGPL will never be adopted in commercial projects. And since no money will be involved, any AGPL project never get enough popularity to be successful. On the side note, anyone can mention successful AGPL project? I want to see how they adopt it in business.
adulau 16y ago
Copyleft type licenses (like AGPL or GPL) are also business friendly. They just choose different business model. There was also a discussion on the topic previously and especially how the non-copyleft licenses (like MIT or BSD-like) are not always contributing to the free software ecosystem: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1642140 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1642140
- hippich 16y ago
  Do you have case for using AGPL software in business. I really want to understand how it could be done.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Gitorious is one company run purely on AGPL software (though they wrote much of it themselves). They seem to think their main value proposition is the service and hosting, so don't much care about having the code itself open. The choice of AGPL seems to be to make sure that any competitors that start from their codebase have to use the same strategy. That's not as freedom-friendly as just letting anyone use it for any purpose, but at the very least, it doesn't seem less free than the usual SaaS strategy of keeping your server-side code completely closed (what their competitor GitHub does).
- evgen 16y ago
  Try naming a single business that uses AGPL. Claiming that AGPL is business friendly is pretty deceptive (i.e. it is business friendly provided that your business is not the sale of software or online services), but around here most people will see straight through the bullshit, chuckle a bit, and move on. The short version that everyone here who actually runs a business will tell you is that GPL is fine for most situations, but you should avoid anything that has the AGPL license for the core of your business unless you really have no other option.
  - martey 16y ago
    Status.Net (raised over $2 million in funding) uses the AGPL. Their software is similar to Twitter (they run http://identi.ca http://identi.ca), but they seem to be targeting the enterprise market: http://status.net/enterprise-network http://status.net/enterprise-network If I made my living selling desktop software, the benefit of using BSD licensed libraries without contributing back to the community would be obvious. The GPL has a similar status among web companies. As a consumer, however, I appreciate the choices that AGPL software give me (e.g. hosting the software on my own server, adding or removing features, etc.).

_delirium 16y ago

The short version is that the AGPL is like the GPL, except any code that you use to run public services is considered "distributed" in the same way that it would be if you had distributed it on a CD-ROM. Think of your thin-client AGPL-using webapps as if they were thick-client GPL-using desktop apps, and the requirements are roughly the same. That still leaves the same grey areas as in the GPL, which seems to be some of your questions: what exactly counts as an API, what counts as a derivative work versus a separate piece of software that communicates, etc. The intention though is usually to require you to AGPL any SaaS you build on top of the original AGPL'd code, the same way the GPL would require you to GPL any thick-client app you built on top of GPL'd code. That effect is usually intentional, because AGPLing code is sometimes used as an alternative to not releasing it at all. For example, Dropbox keeps their source code closed, partly to keep someone from being able to build a competing SaaS on it. Some people choose to AGPL it instead, as an in-between sort of route: people can now build a competing SaaS on your code, but they have to open-source any improvements, which you can then incorporate back into your own service, so at least they can't leapfrog ahead of you using your own code. I'd recommend that if your goal is to build a SaaS that has significant portions of its source code stay closed-source, you probably shouldn't use AGPL'd code.

runT1ME 16y ago

I like it. It's good if you're goal is to eventually sell dual licensed products. A company that is just using your product on the small scale shouldn't have a problem with sharing their code too. If a company has monetized it in a way that makes them protective of their code, you can sell them a commercial license.

jmillikin 16y ago

If you don't distribute portions of the software, then you don't need to worry about AGPL vs GPL vs whatever. Copyright licenses only apply when you perform some action which requires copyright permissions. Based on your post, I'm guessing the AGPL'd code simply listens on a socket, and doesn't send itself to the client. If this is true, then you don't need to do anything special to comply with it.