5 ms·
I find this comment puzzling. You're arguing from an IP owner's perspective. Whether you support using AGPL for your own software is completely orthogonal to wh
by oefrha 6y ago
I find this comment puzzling. You're arguing from an IP owner's perspective. Whether you support using AGPL for your own software is completely orthogonal to whether you should use someone else's AGPL code in your proprietary product (assuming being proprietary is a done decision).
(Btw, one can argue that you have a vested interest in strengthening AGPL so that other companies would more readily choose your AGPL software and then be locked in to your ecosystem, so you're knowingly minimizing the associated risks on this thread.
You see what I did there? Yeah, attack on your integrity based on speculations, exactly like TFA.)
- cycloptic 6y agoThe simple solution there is to not make a proprietary product to begin with. Sorry, not trying to be snarky, but that (among other things) is the price you pay for that decision. It's baffling to me how some companies are so resistant to having to conduct legal reviews to use open source, which in a lot of cases will directly make them money, but at the same time these companies will gladly wave a giant NDA at someone just to start a negotiation.
- kube-system 6y agoIt's not always a choice. There are people who cannot open source their software due to other legal, organizational, or practical factors.
- cycloptic 6y agoThat is still a choice. It may just be that your boss is ignoring your input and making the choice for you, which is a different problem.
- kube-system 6y agoNo, there are plenty of circumstances where there laws and/or contractual obligations other than software licenses become involved in software development which can conflict. See healthcare, government, finance, regulated industries, etc.
- cycloptic 6y agoAnd that is still a choice, but your lawmakers have made it for you. Alternatively, you can choose not to develop for those industries.
- kube-system 6y agoI think you'll find few people who are willing to make changes to those things just to implement an AGPL library --- and even fewer who would call it a "simple solution".
- cycloptic 6y agoI don't disagree with that. My point is that historically, it's been their choice and as a result it's been mostly their loss. When there is will to use the software, but they refuse to take the time to understand the licensing or dismiss it as not being simple enough, the other corporate entities behind it will gladly overcharge them for some kind of proprietary license or legal consultancy scheme.
- kube-system 6y agoProprietary licenses aren't the only alternative to the risk of the AGPL (whether real or perceived). For example: I've never heard of a corporate lawyer having finding issue with an MIT or Apache license. I've run into lots of libraries over my career with vague, conflicting, or otherwise questionable licenses. So far, 100% of the time I've been able to easily find an alternative open source project with a better, more clear, license. If both get the job done, I'll pick the one that doesn't keep me up at night every time.
- woofie11 6y agoI've worked in several of those industries. Oddly enough, open source was always easier there. I'd challenge you to find a regulation which prevents open source in any of those industries. I think the one exception -- and this was an extreme example -- was the firmware of a medical device which could endanger human lives if modified. Things were locked down. But generically? I'm batting maybe 75% with open source in highly-regulated industries.
- themacguffinman 6y agoEvidently, it's even simpler, easier, and more profitable to not use an AGPL project instead.