3 ms·

"The Google page about the AGPL details inaccurate (but common1) misconceptions about the obligations of the AGPL that don’t follow from the text." "The reason

"The Google page about the AGPL details inaccurate (but common1) misconceptions about the obligations of the AGPL that don’t follow from the text." "The reason they spread these misconceptions is straightforward: they want to discourage people from using the AGPL, because they cannot productize such software effectively." "Ask yourself: why is documentation of internal-facing decisions like what software licenses to use being published in a public place?" To be perfectly clear, your claim is: - Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble - Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons - Google adheres to that policy - Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google Have I understood correctly?

catern 6y ago
I don't know exactly what the author of this post means, but it doesn't have be a "conscious" decision on the part of Google to spread misleading information for their own benefit. It's very easy (I contend) for humans to believe things that are poorly supported by the evidence but which are beneficial for them. So even if it's obvious that the AGPL doesn't have the effects that Google's policy suggests it does, it doesn't require active deception on the part of Google for them to believe it does. It just requires that they be deluding themselves for their own benefit - which I think is a very common practice for humans.
- hyperpape 6y ago
  This is a good point. My two thoughts are: 1. I don't find it easy to read the original post as implying Google is honestly convinced of its viewpoint. 2. It's a huge difference in meaning. Assume for the sake of argument that Drew is right about the interpretation of AGPL. How should we interpret Google's actions? If they're paranoid, and afraid that the AGPL might require them to open-source their entire code base, that's unfortunate. You might still call them greedy assholes making open source worse, but it is a real fear that most commercial entities would be concerned about if it's realistic. But if they knew better, and were lying, that's a completely different level of shitty behavior. If there's any ambiguity about that in Drew's post, it ought to be resolved.
waisbrot 6y ago
Not the article author, but: > - Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble No, and I don't know where you got that. The article is talking about how start-ups can typically comply with AGPL without trouble. cic48 claims that all software running on Borg needs to be extensively modified and then can only be compiled using Google's proprietary tool-chain. If that's true, then they can't run AGPL on Borg without releasing the code for the tool-chain. > - Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons No. Has written policies prohibiting it for rational self-interest (GPL, MIT, etc licenses allow them to sell access via the Internet without any cost to them, AGPL does not). After writing these policies, they've provided an alternative justification. > - Google adheres to that policy Outside of Google Legal, who would know whether or not they adhere to their own internal policies? If they used AGPL software internally, they would have no legal obligation to disclose that (because they'd be fully in compliance). > - Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google Why "substantially"? I would imagine the cost of saying "don't use AGPL" and then publishing an article about it was very low. A couple person-weeks of work at the most? It's hard to imagine what wouldn't be worth that investment. But I think you didn't understand the article, because the main thrust of it was to encourage businesses to not be afraid of the AGPL, not to determine whether Google is acting maliciously or not.

catern 6y ago

I don't know exactly what the author of this post means, but it doesn't have be a "conscious" decision on the part of Google to spread misleading information for their own benefit. It's very easy (I contend) for humans to believe things that are poorly supported by the evidence but which are beneficial for them. So even if it's obvious that the AGPL doesn't have the effects that Google's policy suggests it does, it doesn't require active deception on the part of Google for them to believe it does. It just requires that they be deluding themselves for their own benefit - which I think is a very common practice for humans.

hyperpape 6y ago
This is a good point. My two thoughts are: 1. I don't find it easy to read the original post as implying Google is honestly convinced of its viewpoint. 2. It's a huge difference in meaning. Assume for the sake of argument that Drew is right about the interpretation of AGPL. How should we interpret Google's actions? If they're paranoid, and afraid that the AGPL might require them to open-source their entire code base, that's unfortunate. You might still call them greedy assholes making open source worse, but it is a real fear that most commercial entities would be concerned about if it's realistic. But if they knew better, and were lying, that's a completely different level of shitty behavior. If there's any ambiguity about that in Drew's post, it ought to be resolved.

waisbrot 6y ago

Not the article author, but: > - Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble No, and I don't know where you got that. The article is talking about how start-ups can typically comply with AGPL without trouble. cic48 claims that all software running on Borg needs to be extensively modified and then can only be compiled using Google's proprietary tool-chain. If that's true, then they can't run AGPL on Borg without releasing the code for the tool-chain. > - Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons No. Has written policies prohibiting it for rational self-interest (GPL, MIT, etc licenses allow them to sell access via the Internet without any cost to them, AGPL does not). After writing these policies, they've provided an alternative justification. > - Google adheres to that policy Outside of Google Legal, who would know whether or not they adhere to their own internal policies? If they used AGPL software internally, they would have no legal obligation to disclose that (because they'd be fully in compliance). > - Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google Why "substantially"? I would imagine the cost of saying "don't use AGPL" and then publishing an article about it was very low. A couple person-weeks of work at the most? It's hard to imagine what wouldn't be worth that investment. But I think you didn't understand the article, because the main thrust of it was to encourage businesses to not be afraid of the AGPL, not to determine whether Google is acting maliciously or not.