4 ms·

HTTP Toolkit is fully open source, primarily AGPL: https://github.com/httptoolkit/ https://github.com/httptoolkit/. That includes the Pro version too - it's not

HTTP Toolkit is fully open source, primarily AGPL: https://github.com/httptoolkit/ https://github.com/httptoolkit/. That includes the Pro version too - it's not open core, it's just open source all the way down. There are other tools that exist anyway, but all the big ones (Fiddler & Charles, for Windows & OSX respectively) are very much closed source. The other similar open source competitor I'm familiar with is James Proxy (https://github.com/james-proxy/james https://github.com/james-proxy/james) but that's now effectively unmaintained. For comparison, using the internals of Fiddler by itself would cost $2,999 per application per year (https://www.telerik.com/purchase/fiddlercore https://www.telerik.com/purchase/fiddlercore). The standalone internals of HTTP Toolkit OTOH are on GitHub: https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
The parent was likely referring to AGPL, a somewhat-encumbered copyleft license, which most folks working in proprietary software are hesitant to touch. They are probably looking for a non-copyleft license. Though, as a development tool, I don't see any issues using AGPL software.
- pimterry 7y ago
  Could be! It's all open-source but actually not all AGPL: the core desktop app is, but the internal libraries like https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp are generally MIT or Apache 2, so if you're looking to dig into and use those internals, it's pretty thoroughly unencumbered. It's really just the runnable desktop app part that's AGPL. That encumbers you if you're making a directly derivative work (no running off with the whole app but closing the source, thank you), but otherwise it shouldn't limit you at all. This isn't like using a (A)GPL library in your codebase; it's a full application and you're an end user.
insomniacity 7y ago
I've not looked at the code, but wouldn't it be possible to patch this and enable Pro mode without paying? Morally bad and ultimately self-defeating, but I'm guessing legally fine?
- pimterry 7y ago
  Absolutely! In fact AGPL v3 guarantees that right (otherwise in the US I think arguably the DMCA blocks breaking access protections like that). In practice, I'm not too worried. It's a fair bit of a hassle, as you'd have to rebuild everything yourself. It'd also require a fork that would make keeping up to date with the main versions new features painful, and it's been moving pretty quickly! It's only a few dollars a month, if that's expensive enough for you that the time & hassle to fork the whole thing would be worthwhile, email me at tim@httptoolkit.tech and I'll just give you a free subscription.
  - insomniacity 7y ago
    Yes, you're probably right about the DMCA. Would be a fascinating test case, given the availability of the source under an open license! But of course, will never happen. I think I more saw it as a challenge to be honest! But if I do get to that point in the future I may take up your generous offer. Great README docs by the way - spot on in content and delivery!

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago

The parent was likely referring to AGPL, a somewhat-encumbered copyleft license, which most folks working in proprietary software are hesitant to touch. They are probably looking for a non-copyleft license. Though, as a development tool, I don't see any issues using AGPL software.

pimterry 7y ago
Could be! It's all open-source but actually not all AGPL: the core desktop app is, but the internal libraries like https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp are generally MIT or Apache 2, so if you're looking to dig into and use those internals, it's pretty thoroughly unencumbered. It's really just the runnable desktop app part that's AGPL. That encumbers you if you're making a directly derivative work (no running off with the whole app but closing the source, thank you), but otherwise it shouldn't limit you at all. This isn't like using a (A)GPL library in your codebase; it's a full application and you're an end user.

insomniacity 7y ago

I've not looked at the code, but wouldn't it be possible to patch this and enable Pro mode without paying? Morally bad and ultimately self-defeating, but I'm guessing legally fine?

pimterry 7y ago
Absolutely! In fact AGPL v3 guarantees that right (otherwise in the US I think arguably the DMCA blocks breaking access protections like that). In practice, I'm not too worried. It's a fair bit of a hassle, as you'd have to rebuild everything yourself. It'd also require a fork that would make keeping up to date with the main versions new features painful, and it's been moving pretty quickly! It's only a few dollars a month, if that's expensive enough for you that the time & hassle to fork the whole thing would be worthwhile, email me at tim@httptoolkit.tech and I'll just give you a free subscription.
- insomniacity 7y ago
  Yes, you're probably right about the DMCA. Would be a fascinating test case, given the availability of the source under an open license! But of course, will never happen. I think I more saw it as a challenge to be honest! But if I do get to that point in the future I may take up your generous offer. Great README docs by the way - spot on in content and delivery!