4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - rtkwe 9y ago
      > 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. It's intended to maximize freedom to modify and inspect as a whole not at every individual while ensuring that the freedom to do so it preserved for future users. It's a pretty simple and consistent goal and it focuses on the freedoms of the user instead of the freedom of developers. Where those come into conflict like a developer using the code then it defers to the freedoms of 'end' users because in every case the developer of any given application that's used will be outnumbered by the users of that application. That's my take on it's goals at least.
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?

by dpark 9y ago

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.
  - rtkwe 9y ago
    > 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. It's intended to maximize freedom to modify and inspect as a whole not at every individual while ensuring that the freedom to do so it preserved for future users. It's a pretty simple and consistent goal and it focuses on the freedoms of the user instead of the freedom of developers. Where those come into conflict like a developer using the code then it defers to the freedoms of 'end' users because in every case the developer of any given application that's used will be outnumbered by the users of that application. That's my take on it's goals at least.

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?