5 ms·
> Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), bu
by jhasse 8y ago
> Our policy pages are clear on why we ban licenses, even things like AGPL. You'll note they are not economic concerns (IE google won't be able to monetize), but compliance ones.
AGPL compliance wouldn't be that difficult if you remove making money from the equation. So indirectly your compliance concerns are based on economic concerns.
- DannyBee 8y ago> AGPL compliance wouldn't be that difficult if you remove making money from the equation. So indirectly your compliance concerns are based on economic concerns. This is simply false (on both points), and you haven't given any reason it would be true past "i feel this way". Even with direct support from our build system, AGPL compliance is incredibly difficult relative to GPL and other licenses[1] This argument also amounts to "I know more about your job than you do", which, if you do, awesome!, please feel free to do it :) I'm actually happy to go do something else. But i don't see evidence that this is true. [1] For starters, we have to distinguish between what things , what are user facing, what kinds of users have access to them (IE internal services accessible only to FTE googlers are different from those accessible to TVC for AGPL purposes) , etc. This is an incredibly difficult set of problems on the technical side.
- jhasse 8y agoWhy do you have to distinguish between that?
- tannhaeuser 8y agoAppreciate your response, but what's so incredibly difficult to open-source all the things when you're running AGPL software? You choose not to, which is fine, but it's still just you wanting to monetize other's work without giving anything to others to run yours, in turn.
- DannyBee 8y agoFirst, Your assertion is basically not that compliance with AGPL is not hard, it's that "you could just do more than the license requires". That is always true, even for non-open source licenses. You could take MIT code and comply not just by publishing a notice but by publishing all of it. I don't think that is a meaningful argument against the annoyance of having to collate and publish notices. Imagine if you have a commercial license that requires you be able to allow them to look through your books to verify software licensing, that often has high cost. Your suggestion is basically "why not just make your books public" (IE more than the contract requires). I don't think that's a meaningful argument against the cost of compliance, because that's not about compliance with this license, but instead one that requires more. The whole point of contracts/licenses is that they are a deal. What you are suggesting is a very different deal, and we'd deal with it a very different way.
- WorldMaker 8y agoNo one knows what AGPL compliance actually means, whether money is being made or not. It has failed several lawyers' sniff tests for being potentially arbitrarily enforceable however the AGPL developer sees fit, and the general consensus is that we won't have any idea of what AGPL compliance even looks like until its had its day or three hundred in the court system defining what exactly its limits are (if any?).
- smueller1234 8y agoAnd then repeat that in a number of jurisdictions!
- jhasse 8y agoAnd why is that a problem?
- tannhaeuser 8y agoBecause it benefits the party with bigger pockets in court.
- jhasse 8y agoSo it's about money after all ;)