5 ms·

None of the projects listed above are AGPL-licensed. AGPL is egregious in its viral nature.

by bconway 16y ago

callahad 16y ago
Depends on how you apply it. MongoDB uses an AGPL core, with Apache drivers. The end result? Your deployed modifications to MongoDB must be made available, but your application itself can stay closed. It's kind of like the LGPL, but for network services.
baddox 16y ago
It's always seemed to me that with truly free software, you absolutely could compile into a binary and distribute it without the source code. I'm all for abolition of most if not all intellectual property protection, but the copyleft stuff always seemed to me just "we don't like certain restrictions on software, but we're perfectly fine with these restrictions on software."
- lnguyen 16y ago
  It's about making sure that if you build upon the work that others have made openly available, that you contribute back. If you want to keep your code closed, then you're more than welcome to do that. Just honor the choice that others have made with their code.
  - baddox 16y ago
    I'm not saying that's a bad policy necessarily, I'm just saying it isn't exactly what I would call "free" software.
    - Qz 16y ago
      It's not about being completely free for you, it's about being mostly free for everyone.
      - bitdiddle 16y ago
        Thanks for saying this. I think it's best to compare this kind of freedom to freedoms we get from our constitution. You can't deny others those freedoms.
      - baddox 16y ago
        That doesn't sound like the philosophy behind the Free Software Movement.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most efficiently promote freedom. (Don't get me wrong: they do promote freedom.) Now the AGPL, because of its additional restriction, could be seen as less free. I think that technically, it is (it doesn't fully give you the right to private modifications). But the spirit is the same, applied to remote applications instead of distributed software.
      - baddox 16y ago
        It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.
        klipt 16y ago
        You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.
        loup-vaillant 16y ago
        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 You can build onto GPL for free without reciprocating. That's called freedom 1: the right to private modifications.
        loup-vaillant 16y ago
        [tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a private fork. Now in the case of software executed remotely, or software as a service, Eben Moglen himself reckons there is a conflict of rights: because the client is effectively using the code, it should have access to the source code. And because the server do not actually distribute the software, it should have the right not to release anything. You can't satisfy both rights at the same time. The GPL satisfies one (it is 100% compatible with privacy rights), and the AGPL satisfies the other (and makes itself incompatible with some privacy rights in the process). That's a pity, because before the rise of software as a service, the GPL was the ultimate freedom respecting licence. Now you have to choose between two compromises. PS: Don't say "property" about software, if you can help it. It is a inaccurate analogy from the physical goods, which fail to convey the truth about knowledge. (Of course, software is pure knowledge.)
tptacek 16y ago
This word "viral" is like "death tax" or "pro-choice"; it communicates a real phenomenon with an overt spin. The reality is that this "virality" you're talking about is a perfectly reasonable authorship protection. It allows groups that want to claim firm ownership of a project to release its source code without worrying about ending up competing with a fork. We all know, at least ever since Github made it cool, that forks are a desirable property of open source development. But it wasn't always looked on that way and sometimes it in fact isn't desirable. Perfect example: a company that wants to make a living selling a product. We're all better off if they publish their source code, but if they do it with straight GPL, it's going to end up used against them in someone's web app. This is neither here nor there with respect to Diaspora. They may have made some claim about exactly how "open" their "openness" is intended to be. But it's simply not fair to suggest that the AGPL is an egregious license. "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" is an egregious license, and the most popular license in the world.
- lnguyen 16y ago
  Actually the AGPL doesn't prevent you from competing with a fork, as long as that fork is also open. Also as far as the contract goes, it's only if you want to contribute code back to Diaspora project and have it become part of canonical codebase. There's nothing to prevent you from making those contributions available on your fork and have them remain open.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Sorry, meant, "commercial fork". But you're right.
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      Actually it should properly be proprietary fork, since if it ends up with one company being like Red Hat, they can still sell (with added services) what give away for free.
- protomyth 16y ago
  In general, you often see these types of labels when two groups collide (e.g. "Pro-Choice" vs "Pro-Life"). I think "viral" is the counter to the redefinition of "free" used by the FSF.

None of the projects listed above are AGPL-licensed. AGPL is egregious in its viral nature.

by bconway 16y ago

None of the projects listed above are AGPL-licensed. AGPL is egregious in its viral nature.

Depends on how you apply it. MongoDB uses an AGPL core, with Apache drivers. The end result? Your deployed modifications to MongoDB must be made available, but your application itself can stay closed. It's kind of like the LGPL, but for network services.

baddox 16y ago

It's always seemed to me that with truly free software, you absolutely could compile into a binary and distribute it without the source code. I'm all for abolition of most if not all intellectual property protection, but the copyleft stuff always seemed to me just "we don't like certain restrictions on software, but we're perfectly fine with these restrictions on software."

lnguyen 16y ago
It's about making sure that if you build upon the work that others have made openly available, that you contribute back. If you want to keep your code closed, then you're more than welcome to do that. Just honor the choice that others have made with their code.
- baddox 16y ago
  I'm not saying that's a bad policy necessarily, I'm just saying it isn't exactly what I would call "free" software.
  - Qz 16y ago
    It's not about being completely free for you, it's about being mostly free for everyone.
    - bitdiddle 16y ago
      Thanks for saying this. I think it's best to compare this kind of freedom to freedoms we get from our constitution. You can't deny others those freedoms.
    - baddox 16y ago
      That doesn't sound like the philosophy behind the Free Software Movement.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Remember that the GPL prevents one thing and one thing only: making proprietary forks. Meaning, the only "freedom" it doesn't give you is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. This limit is perfectly in line with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I argue that anything that allow this limit to be crossed does not most efficiently promotes freedom. Yes, permissive licences do not most efficiently promote freedom. (Don't get me wrong: they do promote freedom.) Now the AGPL, because of its additional restriction, could be seen as less free. I think that technically, it is (it doesn't fully give you the right to private modifications). But the spirit is the same, applied to remote applications instead of distributed software.
    - baddox 16y ago
      It seems to me that in a world with absolute freedom when it comes to software, it would be perfectly fine to conceal source code. If not, that would imply that the string of bits encoded onto your personal hard drive in your house would be an infringement on others' freedom to have access to that data. Free software in that regard is incompatible with privacy and property rights.
      - klipt 16y ago
        You can conceal any code you write from scratch, but you can't build onto GPL code for free without agreeing to reciprocate. It seems a fair exchange to me.
        loup-vaillant 16y ago
        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703902 You can build onto GPL for free without reciprocating. That's called freedom 1: the right to private modifications.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        [tired] How often do I have to say it ? [Condescending explanation] Among the four freedom, free software gives you freedom 1: the right to private modifications. Meaning, as long as you do not redistribute the software, you don't have to redistribute the source code. And if you do distribute a particular version of that software, only that version of the source code must be accessible. You can still conceal a private fork. Now in the case of software executed remotely, or software as a service, Eben Moglen himself reckons there is a conflict of rights: because the client is effectively using the code, it should have access to the source code. And because the server do not actually distribute the software, it should have the right not to release anything. You can't satisfy both rights at the same time. The GPL satisfies one (it is 100% compatible with privacy rights), and the AGPL satisfies the other (and makes itself incompatible with some privacy rights in the process). That's a pity, because before the rise of software as a service, the GPL was the ultimate freedom respecting licence. Now you have to choose between two compromises. PS: Don't say "property" about software, if you can help it. It is a inaccurate analogy from the physical goods, which fail to convey the truth about knowledge. (Of course, software is pure knowledge.)

tptacek 16y ago

This word "viral" is like "death tax" or "pro-choice"; it communicates a real phenomenon with an overt spin. The reality is that this "virality" you're talking about is a perfectly reasonable authorship protection. It allows groups that want to claim firm ownership of a project to release its source code without worrying about ending up competing with a fork. We all know, at least ever since Github made it cool, that forks are a desirable property of open source development. But it wasn't always looked on that way and sometimes it in fact isn't desirable. Perfect example: a company that wants to make a living selling a product. We're all better off if they publish their source code, but if they do it with straight GPL, it's going to end up used against them in someone's web app. This is neither here nor there with respect to Diaspora. They may have made some claim about exactly how "open" their "openness" is intended to be. But it's simply not fair to suggest that the AGPL is an egregious license. "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" is an egregious license, and the most popular license in the world.

lnguyen 16y ago
Actually the AGPL doesn't prevent you from competing with a fork, as long as that fork is also open. Also as far as the contract goes, it's only if you want to contribute code back to Diaspora project and have it become part of canonical codebase. There's nothing to prevent you from making those contributions available on your fork and have them remain open.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Sorry, meant, "commercial fork". But you're right.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Actually it should properly be proprietary fork, since if it ends up with one company being like Red Hat, they can still sell (with added services) what give away for free.
protomyth 16y ago
In general, you often see these types of labels when two groups collide (e.g. "Pro-Choice" vs "Pro-Life"). I think "viral" is the counter to the redefinition of "free" used by the FSF.