20 ms·

Some software cannot be used at Google

143 points by kevincox 9y ago

franciscop 9y ago
I made a small tool to check the licenses of your installed npm dependencies, which you can execute it by running this on the root of your project: npx legally It will search for licenses in the LICENSE file, Readme.md and package.json (and alt spellings) and make a small report of: what licenses are in use, and some anomalies. The repo: https://github.com/franciscop/legally https://github.com/franciscop/legally
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Nice. We may use this. TBH, licenses in NPM seem like such an afterthought. And the past few companies I've worked at all took advantage of it, greatly. Mostly with SaaS, so they should be OK, but also with commercially distributed software.
  - BillinghamJ 9y ago
    How so? It’s baked right into the package metadata system, API, website, etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Interesting, GitHub recently released a similar tool in Ruby [0], and GitLab uses license_finder [1]. [0] https://github.com/github/licensed https://github.com/github/licensed [1] https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder
  - franciscop 9y ago
    I proposed it and offered myself to implement it into npm, but it was ignored and closed by a bot :( https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14270 https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14270
- deadbunny 9y ago
  Am I being blind or have you released a tool that checks licenses with no license? I mean, I enjoy a good joke but seriously.
  - franciscop 9y ago
    It is right here under "license": https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.js... Just added it as a separated file as well.
weinzierl 9y ago
> notably the Mule ESB and most of the code that backs Reddit, cannot be used at Google Interesting that they mention reddit specifically. On the other hand, it‘s the first time I hear about the CPAL, so maybe reddit is just the most prominent user of this obscure license. Mule ESB is apparently a Java-based enterprise service bus from MuleSoft (which is in talks with Salesforce about an acquisition).
tabeth 9y ago
Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code running on their server(s) , but because Google's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A whistle blower notices and exposes them? Seems that unless someone is dumb enough to use AGPL, commercialize it and open source their code they would never be caught. Same with most licenses, really.
- matte_black 9y ago
  I have a hard time believing anything would happen at all.
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    "Why is there AGPL coming out of your servers, Google?" — "That isn't AGPL, that's uh.. MIT, MIT from the MIT'ed open source we're using". On a slightly more serious note: that's what legal is for; engineers don't get to do it, and if they do, they'll take the fall for it, not Google.
- Promarged 9y ago
  > ...they would never be caught Well I think most companies need stronger guarantees than "[probably] never be caught".
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code, but because Google's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A whistle blower notices and exposes them? I don't think they have to do anything, even if they did had AGPL. The license is only relevant if they distribute the source (or a product written in it), not as to what they privately do with it on their servers. Now, if they had used that code on, say, Android, that's a different thing.
  - spicyj 9y ago
    AGPL is unlike other licenses in that it actually would matter if they use it on their servers.
Promarged 9y ago
For comparison, Apache's "Category X": https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
- ecopoesis 9y ago
  I really like Apache’s explanation linked from that page of the Apache license as a “universal donor” and GPL as a “universal recipient”. It’s the cleanest analogy about open-source licenses I’ve seen.
norrius 9y ago
> WTFPL not allowed. We also do not allow contribution to projects under the WTFPL. I am assuming this does not apply to personal projects, but then why would you contribute Google code to something that you cannot use anyway due to licensing issues?
- tokenizerrr 9y ago
  Guess nothing I release will be used at Google. Oh well, none of it is particularly good or relevant anyway. Funny though, because they are doing exactly the opposite as what the license allows them to do.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    They're doing exactly what the license allows them to do: WTF they want. Which in this case, is not deal with it.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    I guess this is a case where the intent of the license might be obvious, but the legal details of the license not worked out well enough. I really don't understand why people, who basically want to open their sources to everyone, don't just take one of the more established licenses for that purpose, like MIT/BSD.
    - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      Because it's an intentional thumbing-of-nose at licence wankery. WTFPL is a statement that "do what you want and stop being so precious about it".
      - _ph_ 9y ago
        Proper licensing of software is a technical requirement, if you want your software to be used. The technicalities of the law might be unneccessary complex, bizarre even in some cases, but thats how the law is. We programmers are not goint to change that. So, if you really don't care, just take the MIT license, which is about the simplest of the widely used licenses. With that license, anyone interested has a clear base to use your software. Unless of course, you don't intend to share your software for real in the first place.
Proven 9y ago
Rightly so. Those banned “free” software licenses are really garbage.
jacques_chester 9y ago
These kinds of lists are fairly common; we have a similar list at Pivotal. There's nothing sinister about it and the lawyers are not ignorant of opensource or how it works. Big companies simply have a very different legal threat profile from individual contributors. If you want your code to be used by a major company, my impression is that the Apache 2 license is the winner.
- moron4hire 9y ago
  To my fellow programmers, consider for yourself why should gigantic, massively wealthy corporations get to use our code for free. Use the most restrictive version of the GPL to keep your code free for other individuals like us, and provide a paid license option for gigantocorps.
  - derekp7 9y ago
    This really depends on what your goals are. For example if you want a standard that is defined by your software to become an accepted and widely used world wide standard, then Apache or MIT may be a good license. If your application could use a lot more contributions, and most companies won't lose anything if they contribute back their modifications, then AGPL may be better. If you want to make some money off your software, then maybe a Free license isn't appropriate at all. Or maybe it is, if your software lends itself to making money off of side services (support, bespoke enhancements, paid plugin modules, etc).
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    If your open source project is significant enough that a company would license it, yes, dual licensing GPL and closed source is a good business model. The success of QT was based on this business model. This however means, you cannot accept contributions by the communite to the code basis without a licensing agreement with every single contributor. For most projects, it is the goal to share the code and get back contributions by the user community. That includes any company using the code. But for that, the license needs to be permissive enough for commercial usage.
  - virgilp 9y ago
fs111 9y ago
so Beerware is okay then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
- jk563 9y ago
  No, it's included under the WTFPL one.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  The list compares it to WTFPL. Both cannot be used.
- bitofhope 9y ago
  >The Beerware license has similar issues. Under WTFPL section which says it's a no-no. Technically it doesn't say Beerware can't be used but I'd take it to mean it can't.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- t3f 9y ago
  Nope. >We also do not allow contribution to projects under the >WTFPL. > >The Beerware license has similar issues.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
simula67 9y ago
Nice to see the new web projects like Mastodon, Owncloud etc being released under AGPL. I hope projects like OnlyOffice, IPFS etc to move to this model
- diggan 9y ago
  > I hope projects like [...] IPFS etc to move to this model I work on the IPFS project so might be biased, but why do you prefer AGPL over MIT (which IPFS is currently licensed under)? Personally I prefer short and sweet licences, MIT is so short and simple that even I can understand it. But then again, I don't know enough about AGPL to know why I would prefer it over MIT. Edit: I also came across this wording: "Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL", that sounds like the opposite of freedom. I don't know much so probably getting something wrong here...
  - dpark 9y ago
    AGPL is a very different spirit than MIT. MIT is pretty much “do what you want, but no warranty applies, and you have to give credit”. AGPL is a strong copyleft license that requires redistribution and even extends redistribution requirements to indirect users, specifically users of the services you run using AGPL code.
    - diggan 9y ago
      So I don't know much about licensing (and don't do any active decisions about it, I pretty much default to using MIT on a personal level) but doesn't "requires redistribution" restrict freedom here? Freedom for me would be "do what you want, but I don't give you any warranty" while AGPL would mean less freedom directly. Forcing people to redistribute the source, doesn't mean freedom to me.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        The freedom is for the user of the software, all users of the software, to be able to see and modify and use the code not just the developers.
bad_user 9y ago
It isn't a surprise that AGPL is on that list, as it redefines simple usage to be redistribution. I'm sympathetic for its goals of closing the "_application service provider loophole_", but you know what, Open Source, nay Free Software means freedom, so when you grant your users freedoms, your users might end up using your software in ways that you don't support. Freedom is never a _loophole_, freedom is just freedom. In this regard I think FSF has derailed from its own spirit. E.g. GPLv2 just demands for the source code to be available for any distributed binaries, being a simple copyright license. GPLv3 on the other hand extends that with extra clauses to prevent Tivoization, another supposed _loophole_. In the words of Linus Tolvards: > If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind When you start noticing _loopholes_ everywhere and closing them, pretty soon you're left with something that is no better than a proprietary, freeware license. GPLv3 may be acceptable, but AGPL should have never been accepted as an Open Source license by OSI.
- kuschku 9y ago
  The FSF simply has one goal: that all users can access and modify the code of all software they use. If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can not access the code. This is a problem. You are misdefining "user" here.
  - bad_user 9y ago
    No, you and the FSF have the wrong definition. If I install Wordpress on my own server and do modifications to it for my own purposes, I am nothing more than a user of Wordpress. > If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can not access the code. This is a problem. If you borrow my own laptop and use one of my applications installed on it, would you also like access to its source code? And here we have the crux of the matter ... GPL was about distribution as defined by copyright law. AGPL is no longer about distribution, AGPL is an EULA, restricting what users (yes) can do.
speps 9y ago
> GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) cannot be used in google3 What's "google3"?
- oftenwrong 9y ago
  Their monorepo
- paulddraper 9y ago
  I don't work at Google, but it's been referenced before. I believe it is a main part of the monorepo. It at least has a lot of front-end code in it.
- reubenmorais 9y ago
  Probably an internal repository.
- kbwt 9y ago
  In addition to what the other commenters said, I believe it is also the name of their web server executable which includes the core Google search code. Written mostly in C++ but also ships with some Python scripts and protobuf linking it to other services. I don't work at Google, this is just what I heard.
- lvh 9y ago
  google3 is Google's monorepo. Most Google engineers now work within google3. Exceptions include Android and most of the Chrome ecosystem.
- sprremix 9y ago
  "google3: The internal name for our main Piper source repository, and identifies the third incarnation of the source layout for Google production code." "Piper: Google’s internal source control system: https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html" https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html" Which is a pretty interesting read https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/
HugoDaniel 9y ago
Nice to know about the EUPL. I will be using it in my next projects :D
amelius 9y ago
Is Nodejs allowed at Google?
lvh 9y ago
I'm not sure why Google is being singled out here. It would be much more unusual for a company even 100x smaller than Google to _not_ have license requirements for projects they use.
- MattConfluence 9y ago
  It's probably just that Google has published their internal document on the topic, which I don't think many other companies have done.
Applejinx 9y ago
I've chosen a license (MIT) accepted by Google (and many others) specifically because it enables abuse and exploitation, as a sort of defensive tactic. It's a kind of game theory approach, though it doesn't speak well for the future of open source… I'm from the music and the music-instrument industries, so it's natural for me to recognize consolidated power when I see it. From where I stand, the only people who've ever achieved a platform from which they could express anything (up to and including the Eagles) got there through a stage where they could be ruthlessly exploited and sucked dry of all they had, with no recompense. Open source can be like that, which is why the GPL exists: it's a counterbalance. That alone is extremely valuable. In my music example the GPL can be the Irving Azoff, going to war against software unfreeness and making its clients wealthy and successful and granting power in a practical sense. However, in my opinion you can't get there from zero: trying to wield that power from a starting-up position will only get you shunned, and so we see here in the Google banned license list. The only licenses allowed are those where the original creator can be completely exploited. You have to both be good, and prepared to be horribly exploited, to get access to power and attention on a viral scale. If you try to strike a fair deal from the start, it's a recipe for being shunned or blackballed. By definition the power differential between a lone creator and idea-haver, and a vast company, is huge. No license phraseology can take that away. So, since I do things with software that I want to proliferate and become popular, I have to select a license that allows for companies and individuals to abuse me. In so doing, their self-interest is evident. In return, the license asks for 'exposure' on my behalf: credit, and even that's not a given. So my tactic in handling this stuff is to try and set up a scenario where I'm also praising to the skies anyone who uses my source, in hopes that they in turn see PR benefit in praising me. It's power again: from my position of minimal power and ownership of useful code, I have to signal to the more powerful entity that I'll let them completely take advantage of me if only they throw me some crumbs. Then, if one day I do end up powerful, I hopefully come up with something really indispensable, and THEN I GPL it and chuckle merrily when they come to me for alternate terms. Until then, open source licensing has absolutely no power to better my situation, and its ability to aid the freedom of the code under its umbrella applies only to that code and not to any of the people responsible for thinking up the code. They've got to be either completely self-sacrificing, or making a machiavellian calculation about relative power much as I am. Sharing can only be done from a position of power and abundance. Once that's granted, you learn how badly the sharer needs to maintain their position of power…
macmac 9y ago
Surprising that they do not address the issue of derivative works for instance in relation to the EPL. The documentation correctly states that modifications to EPLed code must be made available. But it is also the case that any work that in itself is a derivative work of EPLed code must also be licensed under the EPL.
tscs37 9y ago
I guess that means I'll switch to the EUPL now...
p0nce 9y ago
The restrictive licenses bring nothing to the table. It is an outdated dogma. We ought to choose licences that actually enable software to be written, without needless hurdles. Apple, MS and Google understood this, and they release swathes of stuff under _useful_ licences. If you make something open-source, you probably want it to be legally usable.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Personal opinion - If I'm writing software and releasing it as open source, and you want to use it to lessen your own workload, then I expect you to do something in return - make your changes to it available to others. You're getting the results of my labor, and my "payment" for that labor is "paying it forward" as it were. Old fashioned values perhaps, but paying it forward not a huge ask in my book.
  - tortasaur 9y ago
    It's not a huge ask, especially in this day and age when the friction involved in hosting a fork with your changes is so low.
  - p0nce 9y ago
    You'll mechanically get rewards in terms of bugs reported, paid bug fixes, paid enhancements etc. Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful. There is also a mechanical incentive to contribute back, which is "not having to maintain a fork".
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Nothing prevents the bug reports, fixes, or enhancements in a GPL/AGPL world. > Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful. To be blunt, tell that to OpenSSL and ntpd. Both are broadly used and freely licensed, yet they're chronically short contributers, bug fixes, funding, etc. Being useful to others is somewhat psychologically rewarding, as are the occasional patches and bug reports. But it's not why I (and many others) open source their software.
foo101 9y ago
Why is WTFPL a problem when WTFPL allows Google or anyone to take WTFPL-ed software and relicense it under MIT or another acceptable license?
- gargravarr 9y ago
  I also find that supremely ironic. Google's reasoning is probably sound from a legal perspective, because 'do what you want' with it can be argued that the responsibility of the original code lies with the original author, and it's not clear. But yeah, it's humorous that a license deliberately designed for this reason isn't accepted.
- burntsushi 9y ago
  Because that pre-supposes that one recognizes the WTFPL's validity in the first place......

143 points by kevincox 9y ago

I made a small tool to check the licenses of your installed npm dependencies, which you can execute it by running this on the root of your project: npx legally It will search for licenses in the LICENSE file, Readme.md and package.json (and alt spellings) and make a small report of: what licenses are in use, and some anomalies. The repo: https://github.com/franciscop/legally https://github.com/franciscop/legally

0xfeba 9y ago
Nice. We may use this. TBH, licenses in NPM seem like such an afterthought. And the past few companies I've worked at all took advantage of it, greatly. Mostly with SaaS, so they should be OK, but also with commercially distributed software.
- BillinghamJ 9y ago
  How so? It’s baked right into the package metadata system, API, website, etc.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Vinnl 9y ago
Interesting, GitHub recently released a similar tool in Ruby [0], and GitLab uses license_finder [1]. [0] https://github.com/github/licensed https://github.com/github/licensed [1] https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder
- franciscop 9y ago
  I proposed it and offered myself to implement it into npm, but it was ignored and closed by a bot :( https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14270 https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/14270
deadbunny 9y ago
Am I being blind or have you released a tool that checks licenses with no license? I mean, I enjoy a good joke but seriously.
- franciscop 9y ago
  It is right here under "license": https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/franciscop/legally/blob/master/package.js... Just added it as a separated file as well.

weinzierl 9y ago

> notably the Mule ESB and most of the code that backs Reddit, cannot be used at Google Interesting that they mention reddit specifically. On the other hand, it‘s the first time I hear about the CPAL, so maybe reddit is just the most prominent user of this obscure license. Mule ESB is apparently a Java-based enterprise service bus from MuleSoft (which is in talks with Salesforce about an acquisition).

tabeth 9y ago

Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code running on their server(s) , but because Google's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A whistle blower notices and exposes them? Seems that unless someone is dumb enough to use AGPL, commercialize it and open source their code they would never be caught. Same with most licenses, really.

matte_black 9y ago
I have a hard time believing anything would happen at all.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  "Why is there AGPL coming out of your servers, Google?" — "That isn't AGPL, that's uh.. MIT, MIT from the MIT'ed open source we're using". On a slightly more serious note: that's what legal is for; engineers don't get to do it, and if they do, they'll take the fall for it, not Google.
Promarged 9y ago
> ...they would never be caught Well I think most companies need stronger guarantees than "[probably] never be caught".
coldtea 9y ago
>Question: suppose Google had code running on their servers that was licensed under AGPL. AFAIK that means they have to release the code, but because Google's code is proprietary and closed what would happen? A whistle blower notices and exposes them? I don't think they have to do anything, even if they did had AGPL. The license is only relevant if they distribute the source (or a product written in it), not as to what they privately do with it on their servers. Now, if they had used that code on, say, Android, that's a different thing.
- spicyj 9y ago
  AGPL is unlike other licenses in that it actually would matter if they use it on their servers.

Promarged 9y ago

For comparison, Apache's "Category X": https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x

ecopoesis 9y ago
I really like Apache’s explanation linked from that page of the Apache license as a “universal donor” and GPL as a “universal recipient”. It’s the cleanest analogy about open-source licenses I’ve seen.

norrius 9y ago

> WTFPL not allowed. We also do not allow contribution to projects under the WTFPL. I am assuming this does not apply to personal projects, but then why would you contribute Google code to something that you cannot use anyway due to licensing issues?

tokenizerrr 9y ago
Guess nothing I release will be used at Google. Oh well, none of it is particularly good or relevant anyway. Funny though, because they are doing exactly the opposite as what the license allows them to do.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  They're doing exactly what the license allows them to do: WTF they want. Which in this case, is not deal with it.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  I guess this is a case where the intent of the license might be obvious, but the legal details of the license not worked out well enough. I really don't understand why people, who basically want to open their sources to everyone, don't just take one of the more established licenses for that purpose, like MIT/BSD.
  - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
    Because it's an intentional thumbing-of-nose at licence wankery. WTFPL is a statement that "do what you want and stop being so precious about it".
    - _ph_ 9y ago
      Proper licensing of software is a technical requirement, if you want your software to be used. The technicalities of the law might be unneccessary complex, bizarre even in some cases, but thats how the law is. We programmers are not goint to change that. So, if you really don't care, just take the MIT license, which is about the simplest of the widely used licenses. With that license, anyone interested has a clear base to use your software. Unless of course, you don't intend to share your software for real in the first place.

Proven 9y ago

Rightly so. Those banned “free” software licenses are really garbage.

jacques_chester 9y ago

These kinds of lists are fairly common; we have a similar list at Pivotal. There's nothing sinister about it and the lawyers are not ignorant of opensource or how it works. Big companies simply have a very different legal threat profile from individual contributors. If you want your code to be used by a major company, my impression is that the Apache 2 license is the winner.

moron4hire 9y ago
To my fellow programmers, consider for yourself why should gigantic, massively wealthy corporations get to use our code for free. Use the most restrictive version of the GPL to keep your code free for other individuals like us, and provide a paid license option for gigantocorps.
- derekp7 9y ago
  This really depends on what your goals are. For example if you want a standard that is defined by your software to become an accepted and widely used world wide standard, then Apache or MIT may be a good license. If your application could use a lot more contributions, and most companies won't lose anything if they contribute back their modifications, then AGPL may be better. If you want to make some money off your software, then maybe a Free license isn't appropriate at all. Or maybe it is, if your software lends itself to making money off of side services (support, bespoke enhancements, paid plugin modules, etc).
- _ph_ 9y ago
  If your open source project is significant enough that a company would license it, yes, dual licensing GPL and closed source is a good business model. The success of QT was based on this business model. This however means, you cannot accept contributions by the communite to the code basis without a licensing agreement with every single contributor. For most projects, it is the goal to share the code and get back contributions by the user community. That includes any company using the code. But for that, the license needs to be permissive enough for commercial usage.
- virgilp 9y ago

fs111 9y ago

so Beerware is okay then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware

jk563 9y ago
No, it's included under the WTFPL one.
madeofpalk 9y ago
The list compares it to WTFPL. Both cannot be used.
bitofhope 9y ago
>The Beerware license has similar issues. Under WTFPL section which says it's a no-no. Technically it doesn't say Beerware can't be used but I'd take it to mean it can't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
t3f 9y ago
Nope. >We also do not allow contribution to projects under the >WTFPL. > >The Beerware license has similar issues.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

simula67 9y ago

Nice to see the new web projects like Mastodon, Owncloud etc being released under AGPL. I hope projects like OnlyOffice, IPFS etc to move to this model

diggan 9y ago
> I hope projects like [...] IPFS etc to move to this model I work on the IPFS project so might be biased, but why do you prefer AGPL over MIT (which IPFS is currently licensed under)? Personally I prefer short and sweet licences, MIT is so short and simple that even I can understand it. But then again, I don't know enough about AGPL to know why I would prefer it over MIT. Edit: I also came across this wording: "Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL", that sounds like the opposite of freedom. I don't know much so probably getting something wrong here...
- dpark 9y ago
  AGPL is a very different spirit than MIT. MIT is pretty much “do what you want, but no warranty applies, and you have to give credit”. AGPL is a strong copyleft license that requires redistribution and even extends redistribution requirements to indirect users, specifically users of the services you run using AGPL code.
  - diggan 9y ago
    So I don't know much about licensing (and don't do any active decisions about it, I pretty much default to using MIT on a personal level) but doesn't "requires redistribution" restrict freedom here? Freedom for me would be "do what you want, but I don't give you any warranty" while AGPL would mean less freedom directly. Forcing people to redistribute the source, doesn't mean freedom to me.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      The freedom is for the user of the software, all users of the software, to be able to see and modify and use the code not just the developers.

bad_user 9y ago

It isn't a surprise that AGPL is on that list, as it redefines simple usage to be redistribution. I'm sympathetic for its goals of closing the "_application service provider loophole_", but you know what, Open Source, nay Free Software means freedom, so when you grant your users freedoms, your users might end up using your software in ways that you don't support. Freedom is never a _loophole_, freedom is just freedom. In this regard I think FSF has derailed from its own spirit. E.g. GPLv2 just demands for the source code to be available for any distributed binaries, being a simple copyright license. GPLv3 on the other hand extends that with extra clauses to prevent Tivoization, another supposed _loophole_. In the words of Linus Tolvards: > If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind When you start noticing _loopholes_ everywhere and closing them, pretty soon you're left with something that is no better than a proprietary, freeware license. GPLv3 may be acceptable, but AGPL should have never been accepted as an Open Source license by OSI.

kuschku 9y ago
The FSF simply has one goal: that all users can access and modify the code of all software they use. If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can not access the code. This is a problem. You are misdefining "user" here.
- bad_user 9y ago
  No, you and the FSF have the wrong definition. If I install Wordpress on my own server and do modifications to it for my own purposes, I am nothing more than a user of Wordpress. > If I access photos.google.com, I am a user of photos.google.com – yet I can not access the code. This is a problem. If you borrow my own laptop and use one of my applications installed on it, would you also like access to its source code? And here we have the crux of the matter ... GPL was about distribution as defined by copyright law. AGPL is no longer about distribution, AGPL is an EULA, restricting what users (yes) can do.

speps 9y ago

> GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) cannot be used in google3 What's "google3"?

oftenwrong 9y ago
Their monorepo
paulddraper 9y ago
I don't work at Google, but it's been referenced before. I believe it is a main part of the monorepo. It at least has a lot of front-end code in it.
reubenmorais 9y ago
Probably an internal repository.
kbwt 9y ago
In addition to what the other commenters said, I believe it is also the name of their web server executable which includes the core Google search code. Written mostly in C++ but also ships with some Python scripts and protobuf linking it to other services. I don't work at Google, this is just what I heard.
lvh 9y ago
google3 is Google's monorepo. Most Google engineers now work within google3. Exceptions include Android and most of the Chrome ecosystem.
sprremix 9y ago
"google3: The internal name for our main Piper source repository, and identifies the third incarnation of the source layout for Google production code." "Piper: Google’s internal source control system: https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html" https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45424.html" Which is a pretty interesting read https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/glossary/

HugoDaniel 9y ago

Nice to know about the EUPL. I will be using it in my next projects :D

amelius 9y ago

Is Nodejs allowed at Google?

lvh 9y ago

I'm not sure why Google is being singled out here. It would be much more unusual for a company even 100x smaller than Google to _not_ have license requirements for projects they use.

MattConfluence 9y ago
It's probably just that Google has published their internal document on the topic, which I don't think many other companies have done.

Applejinx 9y ago

I've chosen a license (MIT) accepted by Google (and many others) specifically because it enables abuse and exploitation, as a sort of defensive tactic. It's a kind of game theory approach, though it doesn't speak well for the future of open source… I'm from the music and the music-instrument industries, so it's natural for me to recognize consolidated power when I see it. From where I stand, the only people who've ever achieved a platform from which they could express anything (up to and including the Eagles) got there through a stage where they could be ruthlessly exploited and sucked dry of all they had, with no recompense. Open source can be like that, which is why the GPL exists: it's a counterbalance. That alone is extremely valuable. In my music example the GPL can be the Irving Azoff, going to war against software unfreeness and making its clients wealthy and successful and granting power in a practical sense. However, in my opinion you can't get there from zero: trying to wield that power from a starting-up position will only get you shunned, and so we see here in the Google banned license list. The only licenses allowed are those where the original creator can be completely exploited. You have to both be good, and prepared to be horribly exploited, to get access to power and attention on a viral scale. If you try to strike a fair deal from the start, it's a recipe for being shunned or blackballed. By definition the power differential between a lone creator and idea-haver, and a vast company, is huge. No license phraseology can take that away. So, since I do things with software that I want to proliferate and become popular, I have to select a license that allows for companies and individuals to abuse me. In so doing, their self-interest is evident. In return, the license asks for 'exposure' on my behalf: credit, and even that's not a given. So my tactic in handling this stuff is to try and set up a scenario where I'm also praising to the skies anyone who uses my source, in hopes that they in turn see PR benefit in praising me. It's power again: from my position of minimal power and ownership of useful code, I have to signal to the more powerful entity that I'll let them completely take advantage of me if only they throw me some crumbs. Then, if one day I do end up powerful, I hopefully come up with something really indispensable, and THEN I GPL it and chuckle merrily when they come to me for alternate terms. Until then, open source licensing has absolutely no power to better my situation, and its ability to aid the freedom of the code under its umbrella applies only to that code and not to any of the people responsible for thinking up the code. They've got to be either completely self-sacrificing, or making a machiavellian calculation about relative power much as I am. Sharing can only be done from a position of power and abundance. Once that's granted, you learn how badly the sharer needs to maintain their position of power…

macmac 9y ago

Surprising that they do not address the issue of derivative works for instance in relation to the EPL. The documentation correctly states that modifications to EPLed code must be made available. But it is also the case that any work that in itself is a derivative work of EPLed code must also be licensed under the EPL.

tscs37 9y ago

I guess that means I'll switch to the EUPL now...

p0nce 9y ago

The restrictive licenses bring nothing to the table. It is an outdated dogma. We ought to choose licences that actually enable software to be written, without needless hurdles. Apple, MS and Google understood this, and they release swathes of stuff under _useful_ licences. If you make something open-source, you probably want it to be legally usable.

falcolas 9y ago
Personal opinion - If I'm writing software and releasing it as open source, and you want to use it to lessen your own workload, then I expect you to do something in return - make your changes to it available to others. You're getting the results of my labor, and my "payment" for that labor is "paying it forward" as it were. Old fashioned values perhaps, but paying it forward not a huge ask in my book.
- tortasaur 9y ago
  It's not a huge ask, especially in this day and age when the friction involved in hosting a fork with your changes is so low.
- p0nce 9y ago
  You'll mechanically get rewards in terms of bugs reported, paid bug fixes, paid enhancements etc. Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful. There is also a mechanical incentive to contribute back, which is "not having to maintain a fork".
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Nothing prevents the bug reports, fixes, or enhancements in a GPL/AGPL world. > Useful software brings value to it by the virtue of being useful. To be blunt, tell that to OpenSSL and ntpd. Both are broadly used and freely licensed, yet they're chronically short contributers, bug fixes, funding, etc. Being useful to others is somewhat psychologically rewarding, as are the occasional patches and bug reports. But it's not why I (and many others) open source their software.

foo101 9y ago

Why is WTFPL a problem when WTFPL allows Google or anyone to take WTFPL-ed software and relicense it under MIT or another acceptable license?

gargravarr 9y ago
I also find that supremely ironic. Google's reasoning is probably sound from a legal perspective, because 'do what you want' with it can be argued that the responsibility of the original code lies with the original author, and it's not clear. But yeah, it's humorous that a license deliberately designed for this reason isn't accepted.
burntsushi 9y ago
Because that pre-supposes that one recognizes the WTFPL's validity in the first place......