5 ms·

> One downside they don't mention is that the license restricts who can contribute to your project. In that case Google's policy is what is restricting you, no

> One downside they don't mention is that the license restricts who can contribute to your project. In that case Google's policy is what is restricting you, not the license. The AGPL doesn't say you can't contribute if you work for Google. I'm sure AGPL users (like the company in TFA) wouldn't mind if Google reversed their policy and gave their employees permission to contribute.

mtlynch 6y ago
>In that case Google's policy is what is restricting you, not the license. In this context, I don't think the distinction matters. If I was choosing ingredients for a brownie to sell, using THC would restrict which US residents can buy my brownies. Is it the fault of the lawmakers in my customer's state? Or is it my fault for choosing an ingredient that's banned in most US states? If I'm trying to maximize sales, the question of blame is irrelevant. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is that a Googler can't contribute to an AGPL project. Choosing an AGPL or similar license prevents me from receiving contributions from people who otherwise might be interested in contributing.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  >Is it the fault of the lawmakers in my customer's state? Unquestionably, yes. They know exactly what kind of business they were looking to restrict with those laws, and in your analogy they stuck all the fallout from that on you. (That's not to say one shouldn't be civic-minded, but for the record I tend to avoid analogies when talking about this because they more often seem to confuse the issue than actually explain what is happening)
  - remram 6y ago
    If you think using THC in your goods makes you that "kind of business", do you think being AGPL makes you that "kind of project"? If you do, you can hardly blame Google for making the same distinction.
    - tutfbhuf 6y ago
      Now, I'm confused.
- wegs 6y ago
  Until there's a sufficient critical mass of AGPL to change Google policies. But from my perspective, I'm fed up enough with Google's anti-AGPL FUD that I don't mind not getting contributions from Googlers for a while. It's gotten worse than Microsoft in the nineties. And with critical mass, Google will hopefully make a similar turn. Microsoft is now the world's largest open source contributor by some metrics. I don't know if I buy those metrics, but it's big. Same thing will happen to Google, hopefully.

mtlynch 6y ago

>In that case Google's policy is what is restricting you, not the license. In this context, I don't think the distinction matters. If I was choosing ingredients for a brownie to sell, using THC would restrict which US residents can buy my brownies. Is it the fault of the lawmakers in my customer's state? Or is it my fault for choosing an ingredient that's banned in most US states? If I'm trying to maximize sales, the question of blame is irrelevant. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is that a Googler can't contribute to an AGPL project. Choosing an AGPL or similar license prevents me from receiving contributions from people who otherwise might be interested in contributing.

cycloptic 6y ago
>Is it the fault of the lawmakers in my customer's state? Unquestionably, yes. They know exactly what kind of business they were looking to restrict with those laws, and in your analogy they stuck all the fallout from that on you. (That's not to say one shouldn't be civic-minded, but for the record I tend to avoid analogies when talking about this because they more often seem to confuse the issue than actually explain what is happening)
- remram 6y ago
  If you think using THC in your goods makes you that "kind of business", do you think being AGPL makes you that "kind of project"? If you do, you can hardly blame Google for making the same distinction.
  - tutfbhuf 6y ago
    Now, I'm confused.
wegs 6y ago
Until there's a sufficient critical mass of AGPL to change Google policies. But from my perspective, I'm fed up enough with Google's anti-AGPL FUD that I don't mind not getting contributions from Googlers for a while. It's gotten worse than Microsoft in the nineties. And with critical mass, Google will hopefully make a similar turn. Microsoft is now the world's largest open source contributor by some metrics. I don't know if I buy those metrics, but it's big. Same thing will happen to Google, hopefully.