5 ms·

Hello, While I'm employed to develop an agpl software, and I fond of this license, it's clear that with the wrong actors it can be a threat to some businesses.

Hello, While I'm employed to develop an agpl software, and I fond of this license, it's clear that with the wrong actors it can be a threat to some businesses. I'll tell you a little story that happened around 10 years ago: I got a call from a representative of Oracle, he asked me if we where using MySQL, and if I could described him how, because he wanted to help us make Better use of this tool. We where pretty happy about MySQL at the time, and I went into deep details about how we used it. At the end, he told me point blank that the PHP's MySQL driver was licenced under the GPL and that we had to licence our whole codebase under the GPL since it was contaminating our code as a whole. (Even if we had encapsulated all the accesses to the driver around a single class) The alternative was to pay the right to use it under a non GPL contaminating way. Oracle then called and threatened us many times. The argument that made them stop was when we told us that we where hosting the applications. This argument would not have been sufficient with the agpl. There claim was unfonded but I can assure you that I didn't sleep well for a while!

djhaskin987 6y ago
Your story is a good reminder that these license questions aren't just about some holy war or ideology campaign. These are real people with real problems. We need to be more sensitive about how to structure licenses such as the AGPL. I find I don't want even to use the GPL at times. Why? Not because I want to give away free stuff to Google. Rather, because I don't want to force others to use the same license that I use. You can use MIT code from a GPL code base, for example. I want to be nice. If Google uses it without paying me, that's fine, too. Honestly I'd probably feel pretty proud of myself at that point.
- n0n0n4t0r 6y ago
  Yes and no: I currently work for the editor of iTop (an open source ITSM software). Providing the software under an open source licence was a very early choice. But what if a rogue concurrent decided to fork and hire engineers to provide it's own, better version of the soft while keeping it closed source? The only open source licence providing protection that I'm aware of is the AGPL. When you throw on the project your lifetime savings, it is quite a reassuring licence.
  - juped 6y ago
    You're doing proprietary software! You want to control it, you want to be the only person able to make money off it, and you magnanimously allow others to have the source under terms forbidding them from threatening your monopolies. I know we all have to eat; I'm not a zealot who thinks all software should be open either. But I don't see how developers exercising a monopoly in order to extract rent is software freedom. I just want some rectification of names.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Stories like this are the reason I tell everyone to never touch MySQL and anything related to Oracle. If you need a relational DB, look no further than PostgreSQL.
- bob1029 6y ago
  Alternatively, if arbitrary, highly-litigious vendors start probing your private business activities, politely roll them to voicemail and your spam folder. Unless you are already under contract or other legal order to do so, you do not have to tell anyone anything regarding the nature of your business. Every piece of information you give to one of those assholes is something that will be used against you in a lawsuit. Don't make things harder on yourself.
- em-bee 6y ago
  or MariaDB. or is oracle also going after MariaDB users, since they own a good amount of its code?
st1ck 6y ago
> The argument that made them stop was when we told us that we where hosting the applications. I didn't get that, can you please rephrase?
- labcomputer 6y ago
  The GPL only applies when you distribute software. The person you're distributing it to can request (and you must provide) source for GPL-derived works. A service provider who hosts applications does not distribute software. They use it internally to provide the service. Thus, they do not trigger the distribution part of the GPL. So Oracle can't say "you have to distribute source to your GPL-derived work or pay us lots of money" because you didn't distribute binaries for your GPL-derived work.

djhaskin987 6y ago

Your story is a good reminder that these license questions aren't just about some holy war or ideology campaign. These are real people with real problems. We need to be more sensitive about how to structure licenses such as the AGPL. I find I don't want even to use the GPL at times. Why? Not because I want to give away free stuff to Google. Rather, because I don't want to force others to use the same license that I use. You can use MIT code from a GPL code base, for example. I want to be nice. If Google uses it without paying me, that's fine, too. Honestly I'd probably feel pretty proud of myself at that point.

n0n0n4t0r 6y ago
Yes and no: I currently work for the editor of iTop (an open source ITSM software). Providing the software under an open source licence was a very early choice. But what if a rogue concurrent decided to fork and hire engineers to provide it's own, better version of the soft while keeping it closed source? The only open source licence providing protection that I'm aware of is the AGPL. When you throw on the project your lifetime savings, it is quite a reassuring licence.
- juped 6y ago
  You're doing proprietary software! You want to control it, you want to be the only person able to make money off it, and you magnanimously allow others to have the source under terms forbidding them from threatening your monopolies. I know we all have to eat; I'm not a zealot who thinks all software should be open either. But I don't see how developers exercising a monopoly in order to extract rent is software freedom. I just want some rectification of names.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Stories like this are the reason I tell everyone to never touch MySQL and anything related to Oracle. If you need a relational DB, look no further than PostgreSQL.

bob1029 6y ago
Alternatively, if arbitrary, highly-litigious vendors start probing your private business activities, politely roll them to voicemail and your spam folder. Unless you are already under contract or other legal order to do so, you do not have to tell anyone anything regarding the nature of your business. Every piece of information you give to one of those assholes is something that will be used against you in a lawsuit. Don't make things harder on yourself.
em-bee 6y ago
or MariaDB. or is oracle also going after MariaDB users, since they own a good amount of its code?

st1ck 6y ago

> The argument that made them stop was when we told us that we where hosting the applications. I didn't get that, can you please rephrase?

labcomputer 6y ago
The GPL only applies when you distribute software. The person you're distributing it to can request (and you must provide) source for GPL-derived works. A service provider who hosts applications does not distribute software. They use it internally to provide the service. Thus, they do not trigger the distribution part of the GPL. So Oracle can't say "you have to distribute source to your GPL-derived work or pay us lots of money" because you didn't distribute binaries for your GPL-derived work.