5 ms·

Google Code Project Hosting relaxes license policy

26 points by kadhinn 16y ago

ritonlajoie 16y ago
Well, this guy invented TL;DR, http://www.reddit.com/user/qgyh2 http://www.reddit.com/user/qgyh2 "....the TL;DR version is that we think we've....."
- RossM 16y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant but as an aside qgyh2 was a project where a large number of users used the account to post (I haven't got a source and I know it sounds myth-y but it's what I've read).
obsessive1 16y ago
I've had a project under the AGPL for a while now, and it always annoyed me that Google Code wouldn't support the license. It's good to see them stepping forward to allow the use of these newer licenses on the site.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- tomjen3 16y ago
  I doubt that, because it would not be free software, and properly not open source. But the AGPL does make it a requirement that the user can get the source even if the system runs over a network.
  - 10ren 16y ago
    [Sorry, I deleted without refreshing to check for replies. Here's the original:] Aside: I'm curious if there are any OSI approved open source licenses that exclude server use. I ask, because the current move towards services defeats the purpose of the GPL (of allowing access to the code users depend on.)
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      That's one of the bigger paradoxes of the arrival of the internet. It more or less empowered open source, and then by having the browser as a client made it possible for companies to use open source internally and to build services exposed to end users on top of that open source that will never be released as open source. The 'affero GPL' attempts to cure this: http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html (and the current version: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html ) But so far it has not seen widespread acceptance.
      - durin42 16y ago
        I'd recommend pretty strongly against the AGPL. I know it sounds good when you want to "screw $megacorp," but it actually has all sorts of legal wrinkles in it that make ensuring compliance almost impossible in some cases. The end result is that people paranoid about getting sued about license problems will just not use your code most of the time, and that feels like damage done to the community, not help.
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        Sounds like something people used to say about the GPL itself before it became boringly normal for megacorps to use it.
shaddi 16y ago
Certainly a change of heart -- we were trying to host an AGPL project on Google Code in 2008 and were told to find a new host or face deletion. There was a discussion that got a bit heated in fact, with with Chris DiBona at one point calling the AGPL "deeply flawed". http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_thread/thread/1714c5c0ef5d9f9f/a985013e626cc1ba http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_th...
- durin42 16y ago
  AGPL does have some pretty deep flaws. See [0] for a description of some of the problems. I can't say I'd ever touch AGPL code with a 10 foot pole, simply because I've talked to lawyers about it and it's unbelievably messy (add to that the fact that a user of the AGPL is probably much more likely to sue you if you don't meet their expectations on the license.) [0] http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=4297#c6 http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=4297#c6
- tzs 16y ago
  He's right that is is deeply flawed. In no particular order: 1. It violates the FSF's "Free Software Definition". Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program for any purpose. They explain this as: The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. If I, as a user, wish to run an AGPL program as a daemon on my system to generate forms that get presented to customers and that processes the input the customers type into the forms, I'm the user. AGPL requires that I communicate about the program with the customers. This violates Freedom 0. 2. It seems at odds with #10 of the OSI Open Source Definition ("No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface"). 3. It prohibits something that is allowed by copyright law. Pretty much every other free/open license is based on granting permission for you to do things that would not be allowed under copyright law, without requiring you to give up any of your rights allowed by copyright as the owner of a particular copy lawfully made. To put it succinctly, AGPL is a EULA. That the FSF accepted AGPL shows a major breakdown in their idealism.

26 points by kadhinn 16y ago

Well, this guy invented TL;DR, http://www.reddit.com/user/qgyh2 http://www.reddit.com/user/qgyh2 "....the TL;DR version is that we think we've....."

RossM 16y ago
I'm not sure how that's relevant but as an aside qgyh2 was a project where a large number of users used the account to post (I haven't got a source and I know it sounds myth-y but it's what I've read).

obsessive1 16y ago

I've had a project under the AGPL for a while now, and it always annoyed me that Google Code wouldn't support the license. It's good to see them stepping forward to allow the use of these newer licenses on the site.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 16y ago
I doubt that, because it would not be free software, and properly not open source. But the AGPL does make it a requirement that the user can get the source even if the system runs over a network.
- 10ren 16y ago
  [Sorry, I deleted without refreshing to check for replies. Here's the original:] Aside: I'm curious if there are any OSI approved open source licenses that exclude server use. I ask, because the current move towards services defeats the purpose of the GPL (of allowing access to the code users depend on.)
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's one of the bigger paradoxes of the arrival of the internet. It more or less empowered open source, and then by having the browser as a client made it possible for companies to use open source internally and to build services exposed to end users on top of that open source that will never be released as open source. The 'affero GPL' attempts to cure this: http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html (and the current version: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html ) But so far it has not seen widespread acceptance.
    - durin42 16y ago
      I'd recommend pretty strongly against the AGPL. I know it sounds good when you want to "screw $megacorp," but it actually has all sorts of legal wrinkles in it that make ensuring compliance almost impossible in some cases. The end result is that people paranoid about getting sued about license problems will just not use your code most of the time, and that feels like damage done to the community, not help.
      - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        Sounds like something people used to say about the GPL itself before it became boringly normal for megacorps to use it.

shaddi 16y ago

Certainly a change of heart -- we were trying to host an AGPL project on Google Code in 2008 and were told to find a new host or face deletion. There was a discussion that got a bit heated in fact, with with Chris DiBona at one point calling the AGPL "deeply flawed". http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_thread/thread/1714c5c0ef5d9f9f/a985013e626cc1ba http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_th...

durin42 16y ago
AGPL does have some pretty deep flaws. See [0] for a description of some of the problems. I can't say I'd ever touch AGPL code with a 10 foot pole, simply because I've talked to lawyers about it and it's unbelievably messy (add to that the fact that a user of the AGPL is probably much more likely to sue you if you don't meet their expectations on the license.) [0] http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=4297#c6 http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=4297#c6
tzs 16y ago
He's right that is is deeply flawed. In no particular order: 1. It violates the FSF's "Free Software Definition". Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program for any purpose. They explain this as: The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. If I, as a user, wish to run an AGPL program as a daemon on my system to generate forms that get presented to customers and that processes the input the customers type into the forms, I'm the user. AGPL requires that I communicate about the program with the customers. This violates Freedom 0. 2. It seems at odds with #10 of the OSI Open Source Definition ("No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface"). 3. It prohibits something that is allowed by copyright law. Pretty much every other free/open license is based on granting permission for you to do things that would not be allowed under copyright law, without requiring you to give up any of your rights allowed by copyright as the owner of a particular copy lawfully made. To put it succinctly, AGPL is a EULA. That the FSF accepted AGPL shows a major breakdown in their idealism.