4 ms·

Really? Would have helped to check out: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical All the licenses(Except the T

Really? Would have helped to check out: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical All the licenses(Except the Third-Party Driver licenses) look opensource to me.

marknadal 8y ago
What the heck? You are right, AGPL is listed, yet clearly violates https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated definition. Could somebody explain this to me?
- rvcdbn 8y ago
  What part of the AGPL violates the open source definition?
- nemothekid 8y ago
  It conforms with OSD for the same reason GPL v2/v3 does. As I understand it, AGPL simply treats "networked access" as a subset of "linking". There's a ton of legal grey area that hasn't been tested or has been hand waved away (do I have to open source my web application if it connects to a database that is AGPL licensed?)
  - penberg 8y ago
    AGPL treats "networked access" as "distribution", not "linking". With the GPL, you are required to make your modifications available as GPL if you distribute the modified program. This creates a loophole for ASPs, which can modify GPL’d code, but because they offer it as a service (and don’t distribute the program), they don’t have to share the modifications. AGPL closes this loophole by explicitly saying that network access is considered as “distribution”. So no, you don't need to make your web application AGPL. Just like you don't make all your applications running on Linux GPL just because they happen to communicate with the kernel over system calls. Copyleft licenses are relevant only if your code is a derivative work of the original.
- hizanberg 8y ago
  There is no clear violation, AGPL is a copyleft license based on the GPL v2 (one of the most prominent OSS licenses) but closes the application service provider loophole. Open Source Software (OSS) ensures users have access and can freely modify source code for software they use which the AGPL does, it’s even even more copyleft than the GPL as it ensures modifications to software by ASPs are also made available.

marknadal 8y ago

What the heck? You are right, AGPL is listed, yet clearly violates https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated definition. Could somebody explain this to me?

rvcdbn 8y ago
What part of the AGPL violates the open source definition?
nemothekid 8y ago
It conforms with OSD for the same reason GPL v2/v3 does. As I understand it, AGPL simply treats "networked access" as a subset of "linking". There's a ton of legal grey area that hasn't been tested or has been hand waved away (do I have to open source my web application if it connects to a database that is AGPL licensed?)
- penberg 8y ago
  AGPL treats "networked access" as "distribution", not "linking". With the GPL, you are required to make your modifications available as GPL if you distribute the modified program. This creates a loophole for ASPs, which can modify GPL’d code, but because they offer it as a service (and don’t distribute the program), they don’t have to share the modifications. AGPL closes this loophole by explicitly saying that network access is considered as “distribution”. So no, you don't need to make your web application AGPL. Just like you don't make all your applications running on Linux GPL just because they happen to communicate with the kernel over system calls. Copyleft licenses are relevant only if your code is a derivative work of the original.
hizanberg 8y ago
There is no clear violation, AGPL is a copyleft license based on the GPL v2 (one of the most prominent OSS licenses) but closes the application service provider loophole. Open Source Software (OSS) ensures users have access and can freely modify source code for software they use which the AGPL does, it’s even even more copyleft than the GPL as it ensures modifications to software by ASPs are also made available.