6 ms·

You could AGPL and sell proprietary exceptions. Amazon won't touch AGPL code.

ignoramous 8y ago
Well, most enterprises wouldn't: https://blog.dgraph.io/post/relicensing-dgraph/ https://blog.dgraph.io/post/relicensing-dgraph/
sneak 8y ago
Has the AGPL ever successfully held up in court?
- sjwright 8y ago
  Surely it doesn't need to—either you accept the license or you don't accept the license. If you don't accept the license, you can't use the software. I'd imagine that the challenge with the AGPL is catching and suing the non-compliant services.
  - sneak 8y ago
    If the source is available, I absolutely can use the software—regardless of license. The only thing preventing me from doing so would be either criminal or civil law, and while IANAL, I don’t believe there are criminal penalties for license violations. The copyright holder would have to sue me, and prove that I violated the license, and then they might be able to get a court to force me to stop, pay them, or both. I am curious whether there are any practical observations, one way or the other, about the AGPL’s enforceability.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Obviously you can use the software. Of course you'll probably get away with a license violation if you're not shouty about it. Similarly, I can use a pirated copy of Windows XP too, with effectively zero risk of getting caught. Nobody is suggesting that an AGPL licence violation would result in a criminal penalty, but if you got caught you may be forced to release any changes you made to the source code. And you could lose the ability to use the software in future—if your business relied on it you might be screwed. Personally I think the AGPL is stupid, but people are free to pick whatever license terms they like for their copyrighted works. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
      - sneak 8y ago
        The way you get forced is by someone filing a civil suit. My question was has anyone done that and been successful. It looks like the answer is yes, although it was settled out of court and not adjudicated. I am curious if a judge has ever found the AGPL to be a valid license constraint. Personally, I find “you are licensed to use the software without releasing your modifications on your internet connected computer, however if you open a port and offer it as a service, you are not” to be entirely ridiculous. It seems to me that a license can’t (or at least shouldn’t) hinge on what other software I am or am not running on my computer (eg a webserver). That is why I asked. I’m all for copyleft (despite the fact that its validity hinges on an inherent affirmation of the validity of the concept of intellectual property), but I passionately hate the AGPL because I think it is an unjust infringement upon my freedom as a user. It’s like saying “you have a license to use this software as long as you don’t run a browser that accesses porn on the same machine”. I think it oversteps the boundaries of copyright-as-designed.
- nathan_f77 8y ago
  Yes, Artifex sued Hancom over their use of Ghostscript [1]. (The article says GPL, but Ghostscript has an AGPL license.) The judge denied a motion to dismiss the claims, and they reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount. I don't think many developers are aware that Ghostscript has an AGPL license, and I've heard that the commercial license costs $25k per year. It's very easy to just `apt-get install ghostscript` when you want to work with PDFs (e.g. with imagemagick), but this violates the AGPL license when you are running a SaaS application. There are some permissively-licensed libraries (Apache 2.0) that provide similar functionality, such as PDFBox [2], or PDF.js + Node.js. [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1 https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hanc... [2] https://pdfbox.apache.org/ https://pdfbox.apache.org/ [3] https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/ https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/
  - voltagex_ 8y ago
    $25k seems a bit on the high end - https://ironpdf.com/licensing/ https://ironpdf.com/licensing/ Also, it's 2019 - Artifex, it's OK, you can publish your prices (https://www.artifex.com/licensing/ https://www.artifex.com/licensing/)
  - nwellnhof 8y ago
    > but this violates the AGPL license when you are running a SaaS application Only if you modify the Ghostscript source code.
    - nathan_f77 8y ago
      From what I was reading, I think your interpretation might have been the intention of the people who wrote the AGPL license. But I also know that the AGPL license is usually adopted because they want to sell a commercial license, even if the source has not been modified. Artifex is very explicit about their intention on the licensing page of their website. It depends on the definition of “modification” and “derivative work”. Artifex is adamant that any software using Ghostscript is a derivative work, and the copyleft will apply, so all of your source code must also be released under the AGPL license. This is especially true if your software cannot function without Ghostscript. If you are only distributing your application (i.e. not a SaaS app), then you could make Ghostscript an optional plugin that people can manually install (like LAME for Audacity.) But a SaaS app provides access to the application over the network, so you cannot use Ghostscript without a commercial license, or without releasing your application’s source code. I didn’t see anything about Hancom modifying the Ghostscript source. It was the fact that they distributed Ghostscript along with their own application, and their application depended on Ghostscript for some functionality. That was enough to trigger the GPL copyleft, so they were violating the terms of the license and had to settle out of court. The AGPL means that you would be violating the license by providing access to your app over a network.
Gaelan 8y ago
But will anyone else?
StudentStuff 8y ago
Others are happy to provide AGPLv3 code as SaaS, look at MongoDB's issues. You can build a ton of tooling around said code to enhance performance, adding features and billing, all while not modifying the core AGPLv3 code and thus avoiding the need to contribute back. This is a scummy business practice, but technically legal.
- nvarsj 8y ago
  Why is it a scummy business practice?
  - tingol 8y ago
    Because your core business feature is done by someone else and you just take it and use it for your own profit without giving anything back. Do you need a definition of what scummy means?
    - nvarsj 8y ago
      No need to be rude. I know what scummy means. It's just not clear to me why this is considered scummy. Anyone is welcome to take the open source and benefit from it as long as they comply with the license. This is a very fundamental aspect of open source. A company invests money and engineers in building commercial tooling, which you then pay for because there is added value. You are not paying for the open source - which is freely available. How is that scummy?
      - tingol 8y ago
        I apologize for the brash response. The "comply with the license" part is the problem you're not seeing, using open source as SaaS is a loophole not a license feature. An example being, I license something as open source which means if you don't pay for it (assuming there's an option for that), you are bound to follow the license I provided which means all further work has to be open source (the same license I used) and source has to be provided with the product. In an ideal world this would mean either: 1. We both get paid 2. We both contribute to open software which is available to anyone But in our world it means, technically I'm not selling software but a service so I don't have to do shit. so the result (with scummy companies) is the following: 1. I don't get paid for software critical to your business 2. No one gets the benefit of the new product created despite my license Hence, scum.
yingw787 8y ago
Maybe. At least our company won't touch GPL code; as one colleague described to me, if you violate a proprietary license, a company will come after you for money, while violating a GPL license gets the EFF involved who will come after you for your source code. I'm still wary, though. I could imagine if the resultant fines or source code releases from violating a GPL license weren't a strong enough deterrent, you could win by using a GPL-licensed product enough, then parry off attacks from EFF/FSF until you do a complete rewrite of the product underneath, then pay the fine/contribution to EFF/FSF while toppling the original company. If the company is big enough, and can afford enough good lawyers, there may be legal ways to get around laws. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The only claimants to your source code are those to whom you've distributed binaries built from GPL sources. Anyone else can pound sand.
  - ktjfi 8y ago
    If you were the author of a GPL piece of code whose licence was violated, and the EFF came to you and said "we'll pay for the lawyers and in exchange we get publicity", most people would say yes.
  - hisham_hm 8y ago
    not the case for AGPL: then it's everyone who has access to your online service built with the code.
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      I don't think it works like that. This is a copyright license at its heart. It is a contract between the copyright-owner and the service owner. The end user is just 3rd party.
      - 8y ago
MichaelMoser123 8y ago
agpl will not save you if they choose to re-implement the solution.
- baddox 8y ago
  Nor will anything else, I reckon.
  - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
    keeping the system proprietary will make it harder for them to understand what you are doing; but that will also be very limiting move - in the enterprise software space.
  - curt15 8y ago
    That's basically how the first GPL software came into being -- as a (partial) reimplementation of commercially licensed unix.

Well, most enterprises wouldn't: https://blog.dgraph.io/post/relicensing-dgraph/ https://blog.dgraph.io/post/relicensing-dgraph/

sneak 8y ago

Has the AGPL ever successfully held up in court?

sjwright 8y ago
Surely it doesn't need to—either you accept the license or you don't accept the license. If you don't accept the license, you can't use the software. I'd imagine that the challenge with the AGPL is catching and suing the non-compliant services.
- sneak 8y ago
  If the source is available, I absolutely can use the software—regardless of license. The only thing preventing me from doing so would be either criminal or civil law, and while IANAL, I don’t believe there are criminal penalties for license violations. The copyright holder would have to sue me, and prove that I violated the license, and then they might be able to get a court to force me to stop, pay them, or both. I am curious whether there are any practical observations, one way or the other, about the AGPL’s enforceability.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Obviously you can use the software. Of course you'll probably get away with a license violation if you're not shouty about it. Similarly, I can use a pirated copy of Windows XP too, with effectively zero risk of getting caught. Nobody is suggesting that an AGPL licence violation would result in a criminal penalty, but if you got caught you may be forced to release any changes you made to the source code. And you could lose the ability to use the software in future—if your business relied on it you might be screwed. Personally I think the AGPL is stupid, but people are free to pick whatever license terms they like for their copyrighted works. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
    - sneak 8y ago
      The way you get forced is by someone filing a civil suit. My question was has anyone done that and been successful. It looks like the answer is yes, although it was settled out of court and not adjudicated. I am curious if a judge has ever found the AGPL to be a valid license constraint. Personally, I find “you are licensed to use the software without releasing your modifications on your internet connected computer, however if you open a port and offer it as a service, you are not” to be entirely ridiculous. It seems to me that a license can’t (or at least shouldn’t) hinge on what other software I am or am not running on my computer (eg a webserver). That is why I asked. I’m all for copyleft (despite the fact that its validity hinges on an inherent affirmation of the validity of the concept of intellectual property), but I passionately hate the AGPL because I think it is an unjust infringement upon my freedom as a user. It’s like saying “you have a license to use this software as long as you don’t run a browser that accesses porn on the same machine”. I think it oversteps the boundaries of copyright-as-designed.
nathan_f77 8y ago
Yes, Artifex sued Hancom over their use of Ghostscript [1]. (The article says GPL, but Ghostscript has an AGPL license.) The judge denied a motion to dismiss the claims, and they reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount. I don't think many developers are aware that Ghostscript has an AGPL license, and I've heard that the commercial license costs $25k per year. It's very easy to just `apt-get install ghostscript` when you want to work with PDFs (e.g. with imagemagick), but this violates the AGPL license when you are running a SaaS application. There are some permissively-licensed libraries (Apache 2.0) that provide similar functionality, such as PDFBox [2], or PDF.js + Node.js. [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1 https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hanc... [2] https://pdfbox.apache.org/ https://pdfbox.apache.org/ [3] https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/ https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/
- voltagex_ 8y ago
  $25k seems a bit on the high end - https://ironpdf.com/licensing/ https://ironpdf.com/licensing/ Also, it's 2019 - Artifex, it's OK, you can publish your prices (https://www.artifex.com/licensing/ https://www.artifex.com/licensing/)
- nwellnhof 8y ago
  > but this violates the AGPL license when you are running a SaaS application Only if you modify the Ghostscript source code.
  - nathan_f77 8y ago
    From what I was reading, I think your interpretation might have been the intention of the people who wrote the AGPL license. But I also know that the AGPL license is usually adopted because they want to sell a commercial license, even if the source has not been modified. Artifex is very explicit about their intention on the licensing page of their website. It depends on the definition of “modification” and “derivative work”. Artifex is adamant that any software using Ghostscript is a derivative work, and the copyleft will apply, so all of your source code must also be released under the AGPL license. This is especially true if your software cannot function without Ghostscript. If you are only distributing your application (i.e. not a SaaS app), then you could make Ghostscript an optional plugin that people can manually install (like LAME for Audacity.) But a SaaS app provides access to the application over the network, so you cannot use Ghostscript without a commercial license, or without releasing your application’s source code. I didn’t see anything about Hancom modifying the Ghostscript source. It was the fact that they distributed Ghostscript along with their own application, and their application depended on Ghostscript for some functionality. That was enough to trigger the GPL copyleft, so they were violating the terms of the license and had to settle out of court. The AGPL means that you would be violating the license by providing access to your app over a network.

Gaelan 8y ago

But will anyone else?

StudentStuff 8y ago

Others are happy to provide AGPLv3 code as SaaS, look at MongoDB's issues. You can build a ton of tooling around said code to enhance performance, adding features and billing, all while not modifying the core AGPLv3 code and thus avoiding the need to contribute back. This is a scummy business practice, but technically legal.

nvarsj 8y ago
Why is it a scummy business practice?
- tingol 8y ago
  Because your core business feature is done by someone else and you just take it and use it for your own profit without giving anything back. Do you need a definition of what scummy means?
  - nvarsj 8y ago
    No need to be rude. I know what scummy means. It's just not clear to me why this is considered scummy. Anyone is welcome to take the open source and benefit from it as long as they comply with the license. This is a very fundamental aspect of open source. A company invests money and engineers in building commercial tooling, which you then pay for because there is added value. You are not paying for the open source - which is freely available. How is that scummy?
    - tingol 8y ago
      I apologize for the brash response. The "comply with the license" part is the problem you're not seeing, using open source as SaaS is a loophole not a license feature. An example being, I license something as open source which means if you don't pay for it (assuming there's an option for that), you are bound to follow the license I provided which means all further work has to be open source (the same license I used) and source has to be provided with the product. In an ideal world this would mean either: 1. We both get paid 2. We both contribute to open software which is available to anyone But in our world it means, technically I'm not selling software but a service so I don't have to do shit. so the result (with scummy companies) is the following: 1. I don't get paid for software critical to your business 2. No one gets the benefit of the new product created despite my license Hence, scum.

yingw787 8y ago

Maybe. At least our company won't touch GPL code; as one colleague described to me, if you violate a proprietary license, a company will come after you for money, while violating a GPL license gets the EFF involved who will come after you for your source code. I'm still wary, though. I could imagine if the resultant fines or source code releases from violating a GPL license weren't a strong enough deterrent, you could win by using a GPL-licensed product enough, then parry off attacks from EFF/FSF until you do a complete rewrite of the product underneath, then pay the fine/contribution to EFF/FSF while toppling the original company. If the company is big enough, and can afford enough good lawyers, there may be legal ways to get around laws. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The only claimants to your source code are those to whom you've distributed binaries built from GPL sources. Anyone else can pound sand.
- ktjfi 8y ago
  If you were the author of a GPL piece of code whose licence was violated, and the EFF came to you and said "we'll pay for the lawyers and in exchange we get publicity", most people would say yes.
- hisham_hm 8y ago
  not the case for AGPL: then it's everyone who has access to your online service built with the code.
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    I don't think it works like that. This is a copyright license at its heart. It is a contract between the copyright-owner and the service owner. The end user is just 3rd party.
    - 8y ago

MichaelMoser123 8y ago

agpl will not save you if they choose to re-implement the solution.

baddox 8y ago
Nor will anything else, I reckon.
- MichaelMoser123 8y ago
  keeping the system proprietary will make it harder for them to understand what you are doing; but that will also be very limiting move - in the enterprise software space.
- curt15 8y ago
  That's basically how the first GPL software came into being -- as a (partial) reimplementation of commercially licensed unix.