3 ms·
> AGPL license but found two major drawbacks (a) AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules I'm not
by e12e 8y ago
> AGPL license but found two major drawbacks (a) AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules
I'm not sure I understand this formulation. The * gp licenses are generally focused on defending the four freedoms[f] - and freedom zero is the freedom to run the software. How would anyone think that a * gp license would prevent that?
Am I correct in my interpretation that Redis Labs' original intention was to charge a fee for these modules, and in the case of various form of re-sales (like SaaS) - to partner with providers so that there was a revenue split?
I'm asking, not because I'm against commercial software (although I do prefer to run Free software) - but just to make sure I understand the [ed:"drawbacks"] of the AGPL as Redis Labs sees it?
[f] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- legohead 8y agoGNU licenses require sharing code. Bad for business.
- johannes1234321 8y agoFor GPL (not talking AGPL as my knowledge there is too limited) Vendors in "classical" environments GPL is a valid business choice - competitors get access to the code, but also have to share their extensions. The original vendor however can be in a stronger position and share their extensions commercially (with dual licensing and CLAs for external contributions) In a cloud environment however the cloud vendor doesn't "redistribute" the software, thus doesn't have to share their extensions, thus taking revenues without any contributions, putting the cloud vendor in an even better position as the original vendor, as the original vendor pays for the maintenance of the core product, which the cloud vendor uses for free.
- e12e 8y agoAnd the main trust of the AGPL is treating giving access to a running program, as traditional GPL "distribution" - code must be made available to users of a service upon request - along with any changes. With GPL - for example - Amazon could freely customize the Linux kernel with a new software defined networking stack for use by s3 back-end services. And would be free not to share the changes. If the kernel was under AGPL users of s3 would have a legal right to see the changes.