6 ms·
I agree that random engineers should have the humility to listen to feedback from lawyers. And IANAL. Here's the sentence with "scripts to control": > The "Co
by jcheng 6y ago
I agree that random engineers should have the humility to listen to feedback from lawyers. And IANAL.
Here's the sentence with "scripts to control":
> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.
That being said, it feels like a stretch to me that the particular orchestration infrastructure your company uses could be considered part of this. Borg is clearly not "needed to... run the object code and to modify the work" (PostGIS), which you could easily demonstrate by running and modifying PostGIS without Borg--as every other user of PostGIS does.
- knorker 6y agoIt's perfectly possible that binaries that google runs on Borg cannot run on a vanilla Linux system.
- cic48 6y agoNot only possible, it’s a fact. Borg executables make many assumptions about available runtime services and cannot operate in their absence. It’s probably impossible to derive and operate the same artifact Google is running without a complete Google architecture in place and operating, from Chubby on up. How does one comply with the AGPL in that scenario? “Rearchitect a not stupid way” is probably the answer here, so it’s a nonstarter.
- jeffbee 6y agoThe AGPL virality is considered such a big risk, and the "scripts to control" clause is considered so sweeping and vague, that Google has its own internal version of R that won't download AGPL libraries from CRAN, because just looking looking at the performance stats from production services in R using an AGPL library could taint the source code of the service itself. Nobody knows.
- saagarjha 6y ago> because just looking looking at the performance stats from production services in R using an AGPL library could taint the source code of the service itself I think this is what is being referred to as "FUD". Anyone can go after you for some sort of supposed license issue, but at some point you need to consider that many of these are extremely far-fetched and serve only to quite literally add FUD around AGPL.
- jeffbee 6y agoIt meets the literal definition for each of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That is true. But the uncertainty is the point. Why risk something as valuable as Google's proprietary source code over something with as little utility as some random CRAN package?
- pedrocr 6y agoThe definition of FUD is that you are spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt as a tactic not that you yourself are afraid, uncertain or have any doubts.
- jeffbee 6y agoI think the “spreading” aspect is overstated. These are clearly Google’s internal docs that just happen to be accessible to the public.
- boogies 6y agoThe article: > Ask yourself: why is documentation of internal-facing decisions like what software licenses to use being published in a public place? The answer is straightforward: to influence the public.
- knorker 6y agoSo Google is wrong for being secretive when not sharing, and wrong when they're not because clearly it's a ruse? Heads I win, tails you lose. With that logic you can fit any action into what you already "know".