4 ms·

I think that what happens here is that enterprises don't like a license where there is this concept of open sourcing internal changes. They are happier with lim

I think that what happens here is that enterprises don't like a license where there is this concept of open sourcing internal changes. They are happier with limiting the kind of use you can do with the code instead, like doing SaaS, that most of them don't plan to do at all.

pritambaral 8y ago
AGPL doesn't require releasing internal changes unless the changed code is served (like in SaaS) externally. Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network.
- ecnahc515 8y ago
  Im generally curious, what's the definition of "externally"? It's a bit more vague compared to "operating as a service", since you may expose your service externally, but only allow access to internal users.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    The license itself doesn't treat "externally" different from "internally". Its terms are simple: any one who uses it should have a way to get the source. If you let someone "external" to the company use the software over a network, then, during their use, they should have a way to get the source. If you don't let any one "external" connect to the service, then there's no need for you to provide them a way to get the source. ----- For example, if there were a software like redis, but one that were licensed under the GNU AGPLv3 — say 'gredis' — and you let someone connect to it — say, using 'gredis-cli' — then you must make the source available to them. But if you run this 'gredis' software in your stack and make use of it in your stack but don't let anyone except your ops team connect to the running 'gredis' instances, then you need make your source available only to your ops team.
  - rmc 8y ago
    I don't know about GNU, but OpenStreetMap has a licence where bits kick in if it's used externally, and it defines it as: "“Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant)." So if you can tell someone to do something, they are internal. If you can't, then that's public. https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Here is the actual portion of the GNU AGPLv3 that is relevant: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. There are a few key things to note (I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of the GPL family of licenses is that they be written so that developers can also understand them): * It only applies to people who have modified their version of the software, so if you just run code provided to you by someone else you don't need to give network users the source code. * It uses the term "users" which would imply that if you state that someone external to your company is not permitted to use the service, they would not be considered a user (and thus you don't need to give them a copy of the source).
- tzs 8y ago
  > Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network. I'm not so sure about that. If it is only on an internal network, where everyone who uses it is using it in their capacity as employees of the organization, would the source code obligation apply to them personally, or would it apply to the company because they are acting as agents of the company? If the later, the obligation would be for the company to provide itself a copy of the code.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    The license doesn't distinguish people from people working as employees. The original AGPL (not GNU) states[1], in its FAQ: "Simply, if run internally to a commercial company, then the company isn't required to release source code back to the world."; and "If an employee has access to the source and has the right to make improvements, the commercial entity could probably view this work as work for hire and owned by the company and not have to be released outside." 1: http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_commercial http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_...

pritambaral 8y ago

AGPL doesn't require releasing internal changes unless the changed code is served (like in SaaS) externally. Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network.

ecnahc515 8y ago
Im generally curious, what's the definition of "externally"? It's a bit more vague compared to "operating as a service", since you may expose your service externally, but only allow access to internal users.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  The license itself doesn't treat "externally" different from "internally". Its terms are simple: any one who uses it should have a way to get the source. If you let someone "external" to the company use the software over a network, then, during their use, they should have a way to get the source. If you don't let any one "external" connect to the service, then there's no need for you to provide them a way to get the source. ----- For example, if there were a software like redis, but one that were licensed under the GNU AGPLv3 — say 'gredis' — and you let someone connect to it — say, using 'gredis-cli' — then you must make the source available to them. But if you run this 'gredis' software in your stack and make use of it in your stack but don't let anyone except your ops team connect to the running 'gredis' instances, then you need make your source available only to your ops team.
- rmc 8y ago
  I don't know about GNU, but OpenStreetMap has a licence where bits kick in if it's used externally, and it defines it as: "“Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant)." So if you can tell someone to do something, they are internal. If you can't, then that's public. https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
- cyphar 8y ago
  Here is the actual portion of the GNU AGPLv3 that is relevant: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. There are a few key things to note (I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of the GPL family of licenses is that they be written so that developers can also understand them): * It only applies to people who have modified their version of the software, so if you just run code provided to you by someone else you don't need to give network users the source code. * It uses the term "users" which would imply that if you state that someone external to your company is not permitted to use the service, they would not be considered a user (and thus you don't need to give them a copy of the source).
tzs 8y ago
> Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network. I'm not so sure about that. If it is only on an internal network, where everyone who uses it is using it in their capacity as employees of the organization, would the source code obligation apply to them personally, or would it apply to the company because they are acting as agents of the company? If the later, the obligation would be for the company to provide itself a copy of the code.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  The license doesn't distinguish people from people working as employees. The original AGPL (not GNU) states[1], in its FAQ: "Simply, if run internally to a commercial company, then the company isn't required to release source code back to the world."; and "If an employee has access to the source and has the right to make improvements, the commercial entity could probably view this work as work for hire and owned by the company and not have to be released outside." 1: http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_commercial http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_...