4 ms·

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.
      - diggan 9y ago
        The freedom to see and modify code if you're not a developer? Bypassing how that would work, it's 99% freedom, as there is still restrictions on what you can do with it. You cannot, for example, package it, call it something else and distribute it without the source. I don't see how that can be called freedom. Either you have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, or you don't have the freedom. 99% freedom is (for me at least) not good enough. It's like the license (that I can't remember the name of right now) where you can do whatever you want with the software EXCEPT use it for evil. That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me.
        cyphar 9y ago
        The GPL is used for a very large amount of free software, so I'm a little confused by your rejection of the very concept. But the general idea is that the GPL guarantees the same freedoms to everyone (the right to use the software, modify it, and distribute it). But the only way of guaranteeing the same set of freedoms is to restrict people from taking away others' freedoms. Personally, I think that's more than fair, because the net effect is that everyone has software freedom (which is what the whole free software movement is about). > That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me. To give an extreme analogy, the "freedom to murder" or the "freedom to incarcerate other people against their will" is not permitted in free countries. Is this an attack on people's freedoms? No, it's required in order for everyone to be able to exercise their freedom to live and free movement.
        falcolas 9y ago
        The problem comes in that by granting the developer the ability to do whatever you want, that also includes denying the user the ability to do whatever they want. So, the developer gets 100% freedom, and the user gets 0%. I dislike the notion that the fluency of a user in programming matters at all - nothing prevents them from learning how to program from the code made available to them (a proven benefit), or from hiring someone to look over the code on their behalf. Ultimately, the original software's developer's definition of freedom trumps all of ours. Our freedom is to pick whether to use software that has that license or not.
  - belorn 9y ago
    Do what you want with no laws, conditions or restrictions is not freedom for me in any other area of life so why should we use that as the definition for software licenses? Absolute freedom is horrible. In every place it exist it causes massive damage and reduce peoples liberty. Practically every philosopher on the topic acknowledge that absolute freedom, the law of the jungle, result in devastation for those with less power. What make software so difference that the law of the jungle is suddenly the only right definition for freedom?
- gregknicholson 9y ago
  With permissive licences like the MIT licence, Evil Corp could take your code and improve it, but make their improvements proprietary. Evil Corp then has a better product than you. They can continue to benefit from your future work, but you can't benefit from theirs. The same is true of the GPL, as long as Evil Corp never distributes the binaries to the end user. This is the service-as-a-software-substitute loophole. With the AGPL, if Evil Corp modifies your code and allows their customer to run it, their customer is entitled to receive the source under the AGPL, which allows them to contribute it back upstream to you. You then have a product just as good as Evil Corp. They benefit from your future work, and you can benefit from theirs.
  - diggan 9y ago
    > Evil Corp could take your code and improve it, but make their improvements proprietary Yeah, but isn't that what software freedom is all about? People can get the code and do whatever they want with it? Of course it's nicer if they share back, but if they don't, it's their loss, they won't get contributions. If users truly value the license and to be able to contribute back, users would naturally chose to use my code rather than using the code from Evil Corp, since it has the "wrong" license from them. Limiting the usage and distribution feels like the opposite of freedom, but I want to re-iterate that my knowledge about licensing is so limited, it feels like I'm misunderstanding something here. I'm very grateful for the answers, so I can educate myself :)
    - CarVac 9y ago
      It's about end-user freedom, not developer freedom. It prevents the developer from limiting others' freedoms later. If upstream uses a permissive license, then a developer can build on it without giving back to the open source part, and anybody using that derivative has lost software freedom. But a developer can still have nearly complete freedom even with the GPL; they simply must distribute their source under the same license. Not very onerous.
      - diggan 9y ago
        Thanks for providing your point of view, appreciate it! So the point of AGPL is to force people into a world of open source? Not because it's better and people prefer it, but because the license requires it? I'm not sure I'm a fan of that, as that's the opposite of what I see freedom being. "nearly complete freedom" and "they simply must" feels like it's missing the point. As someone else in this post said: "freedom is just freedom". By defining what conditions freedom vs not-freedom is ok, aren't we missing the entire point of freedom? If you give people freedom, they might use that in a way you don't approve of. If you give freedom, unless you do X, it's not freedom anymore, it's just a set of constraints.

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.
    - diggan 9y ago
      The freedom to see and modify code if you're not a developer? Bypassing how that would work, it's 99% freedom, as there is still restrictions on what you can do with it. You cannot, for example, package it, call it something else and distribute it without the source. I don't see how that can be called freedom. Either you have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, or you don't have the freedom. 99% freedom is (for me at least) not good enough. It's like the license (that I can't remember the name of right now) where you can do whatever you want with the software EXCEPT use it for evil. That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        The GPL is used for a very large amount of free software, so I'm a little confused by your rejection of the very concept. But the general idea is that the GPL guarantees the same freedoms to everyone (the right to use the software, modify it, and distribute it). But the only way of guaranteeing the same set of freedoms is to restrict people from taking away others' freedoms. Personally, I think that's more than fair, because the net effect is that everyone has software freedom (which is what the whole free software movement is about). > That's not freedom, freedom is: do whatever you want, literally. At least for me. To give an extreme analogy, the "freedom to murder" or the "freedom to incarcerate other people against their will" is not permitted in free countries. Is this an attack on people's freedoms? No, it's required in order for everyone to be able to exercise their freedom to live and free movement.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        The problem comes in that by granting the developer the ability to do whatever you want, that also includes denying the user the ability to do whatever they want. So, the developer gets 100% freedom, and the user gets 0%. I dislike the notion that the fluency of a user in programming matters at all - nothing prevents them from learning how to program from the code made available to them (a proven benefit), or from hiring someone to look over the code on their behalf. Ultimately, the original software's developer's definition of freedom trumps all of ours. Our freedom is to pick whether to use software that has that license or not.
- belorn 9y ago
  Do what you want with no laws, conditions or restrictions is not freedom for me in any other area of life so why should we use that as the definition for software licenses? Absolute freedom is horrible. In every place it exist it causes massive damage and reduce peoples liberty. Practically every philosopher on the topic acknowledge that absolute freedom, the law of the jungle, result in devastation for those with less power. What make software so difference that the law of the jungle is suddenly the only right definition for freedom?
gregknicholson 9y ago
With permissive licences like the MIT licence, Evil Corp could take your code and improve it, but make their improvements proprietary. Evil Corp then has a better product than you. They can continue to benefit from your future work, but you can't benefit from theirs. The same is true of the GPL, as long as Evil Corp never distributes the binaries to the end user. This is the service-as-a-software-substitute loophole. With the AGPL, if Evil Corp modifies your code and allows their customer to run it, their customer is entitled to receive the source under the AGPL, which allows them to contribute it back upstream to you. You then have a product just as good as Evil Corp. They benefit from your future work, and you can benefit from theirs.
- diggan 9y ago
  > Evil Corp could take your code and improve it, but make their improvements proprietary Yeah, but isn't that what software freedom is all about? People can get the code and do whatever they want with it? Of course it's nicer if they share back, but if they don't, it's their loss, they won't get contributions. If users truly value the license and to be able to contribute back, users would naturally chose to use my code rather than using the code from Evil Corp, since it has the "wrong" license from them. Limiting the usage and distribution feels like the opposite of freedom, but I want to re-iterate that my knowledge about licensing is so limited, it feels like I'm misunderstanding something here. I'm very grateful for the answers, so I can educate myself :)
  - CarVac 9y ago
    It's about end-user freedom, not developer freedom. It prevents the developer from limiting others' freedoms later. If upstream uses a permissive license, then a developer can build on it without giving back to the open source part, and anybody using that derivative has lost software freedom. But a developer can still have nearly complete freedom even with the GPL; they simply must distribute their source under the same license. Not very onerous.
    - diggan 9y ago
      Thanks for providing your point of view, appreciate it! So the point of AGPL is to force people into a world of open source? Not because it's better and people prefer it, but because the license requires it? I'm not sure I'm a fan of that, as that's the opposite of what I see freedom being. "nearly complete freedom" and "they simply must" feels like it's missing the point. As someone else in this post said: "freedom is just freedom". By defining what conditions freedom vs not-freedom is ok, aren't we missing the entire point of freedom? If you give people freedom, they might use that in a way you don't approve of. If you give freedom, unless you do X, it's not freedom anymore, it's just a set of constraints.