4 ms·
Chris DiBona is paid to care about exactly this issue. Compliance is his job description and AGPL policy companywide is comfortably in that portfolio. That you
by cic48 6y ago
Chris DiBona is paid to care about exactly this issue. Compliance is his job description and AGPL policy companywide is comfortably in that portfolio. That you disagree with him does not indict Google nor create an alternative universe where Googlers are setting out unprompted to screw the free software world that gave them 50% of their infrastructure for no reason other than fear.
You underestimate the rigor required in compliance. We are talking about FAANG compliance, too, which holds nary a candle toward compliance in other verticals. This thread should illustrate why compliance decisions are largely made independently of engineering.
- pydry 6y agoThough they try to hide it it does seem that ideology is driving this at Google - not practicality. I mean, Google code banning AGPL kind of gives the game away. That, and him saying that Apache (most liberal) is really his favorite license. Oh and "we never really wanted any of the AGPL code it's all crap anyway". None of those things are about rigor in compliance. Those are about a corporation stamping its feet.
- saagarjha 6y ago> Chris DiBona is paid to care about exactly this issue. Right, which doesn't really address the point being made above, which is that Chris DiBona is paid to care about the issue, has a position on it, and now has a reason to claim that AGPL code is not useful.