3 ms·

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except i

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".

sedachv 7y ago
Or you can stop spreading the FUD and point people to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
- eitland 7y ago
  It might very well be that this is more of an education and explanation problem. My point still stands: I don't personally know a single person who is able to explain AGPL.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?
    - ghaff 7y ago
      It's the "whatever you're running" that gets complicated if you're using the AGPL code in conjunction with a bunch of other code to deliver some service to customers. What are the rules around how that other code is allowed to interact with the AGPL code before it has to be made available as well?
      - eitland 7y ago
        Ok, two slightly different already, in addition to a number of people who have no idea at all. I think this proved what I said. (That said there was a thread on the n8n project where a couple of persons had serious problems understanding the basics of open source, its relation to free software, why commons clause isn't open source etc etc so guess we will have to explain what is and isn't "open source" for the foreseeable future :-/
ghaff 7y ago
The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service. What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional Unix methods of combining code which are mostly unambiguous.
- eitland 7y ago
  > The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service. Agree. > What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional Unix methods of combining code which are mostly unambiguous. Agree again. See my point? I don't say AGPL is bad only that it has a tendency to confuse developers in all directions.

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".

sedachv 7y ago

Or you can stop spreading the FUD and point people to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

eitland 7y ago
It might very well be that this is more of an education and explanation problem. My point still stands: I don't personally know a single person who is able to explain AGPL.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It's the "whatever you're running" that gets complicated if you're using the AGPL code in conjunction with a bunch of other code to deliver some service to customers. What are the rules around how that other code is allowed to interact with the AGPL code before it has to be made available as well?
    - eitland 7y ago
      Ok, two slightly different already, in addition to a number of people who have no idea at all. I think this proved what I said. (That said there was a thread on the n8n project where a couple of persons had serious problems understanding the basics of open source, its relation to free software, why commons clause isn't open source etc etc so guess we will have to explain what is and isn't "open source" for the foreseeable future :-/

ghaff 7y ago

The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service. What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional Unix methods of combining code which are mostly unambiguous.

eitland 7y ago
> The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service. Agree. > What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional Unix methods of combining code which are mostly unambiguous. Agree again. See my point? I don't say AGPL is bad only that it has a tendency to confuse developers in all directions.