3 ms·

I'm definitely not a GNU fanboy, but AGPL is the best open license if you're scared about heavily commercial usage from 3rd party. There's another options, like

I'm definitely not a GNU fanboy, but AGPL is the best open license if you're scared about heavily commercial usage from 3rd party. There's another options, like proprietary license, proprietary must-have addons/parts/kernel - here you losing fame & contributors.

knorker 6y ago
AGPL scares away both users and contributors. I would not touch either with a 10 meter pole. So no, it's not the best license. Case in point: This story is about how someone would rather not use the product at all, than be subject to the AGPL. Same with me as an employee, and as a hobby individual. AGPL is good at one thing only: scaring away people.
- paulcarroty 6y ago
  Seems like you still don't understand - the license designed to scare people like you :) Mostly big corps.
  - knorker 6y ago
    It's designed to scare away open source hobby programmers? And users? This seems like "avoid success at all costs". The way I see it there are two kinds of potential AGPL software users and contributors: 1. Those who have not read and/or understood the license, and just go with it. They likely will be fine, because who's going to sue John Doe who built his first website in PHP, but didn't publish his AWS script for launching mongoDB? 2. People who nope the fuck out when they read the license, and don't become contributors or users. (1) are violating the license. (2) are not using it at all. So what an AGPL software author does is take the pool of potential users and contributors, and divides them into those who nope out, and those who violate the license. And is that really good honest work you can be proud of? That reminds me more of the music industry of 15 years ago. They gave their customers two options: Have to deal with spinning plastic, or pirate. In this comparison the former is "nope, guess I won't listen to that band, then". AGPL software authors often make the point you are: Well nobody is using plastic, and so what if they pirate the software? They're not profiteering on it, and it was free anyway. Just make a license that says it's not allowed to be used by companies of size greater than X.
    - commoner 6y ago
      > Just make a license that says it's not allowed to be used by companies of size greater than X. That kind of license would not be free or open source. Such a restriction is not allowed in both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. > A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the conditions of the free license covering the software. Putting some of the freedoms off limits to some users, or requiring that users pay, in money or in kind, to exercise them, is tantamount to not granting the freedoms in question, and thus renders the program nonfree. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The AGPL is both a free software license and an open source software license because it ensures certain freedoms for end users, including source code access. Intermediaries who want to host modified AGPL-licensed software, but do not want to release the source code for their modifications, have the option of negotiating a commercial license with the original developer. The commercial distribution of the software would be nonfree, but it would fund development of the free software.
      - knorker 6y ago
        > That kind of license would not be free or open source. I agree. And I'm saying AGPL is de facto not free software, because ~100% of serious (even hobby) installations violate it, even if it's free software de jure. And independent of this I also think AGPL violates freedom 0. E.g. the AGPL explicitly forbids you from running a service combined with proprietary software. You are NOT allowed to run a service by combining AGPL software with a binary blob you don't have source code to. How could this possibly be "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? If I'm not allowed to run X with Y, how is it "as you wish, for any purpose"? > have the option of negotiating a commercial license with the original developer. Only if ALL contributors (aka copyright holders) agree to this. Copyright reassignment is needed from the beginning of the project, for all contributions.
        6y ago
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
    It’s rather effective in that regard. When I worked in BigCorp, the open source contributions had to be reviewed. There was a blanket policy that anything GPL/AGPL was not to be touched under any circumstances.

knorker 6y ago

AGPL scares away both users and contributors. I would not touch either with a 10 meter pole. So no, it's not the best license. Case in point: This story is about how someone would rather not use the product at all, than be subject to the AGPL. Same with me as an employee, and as a hobby individual. AGPL is good at one thing only: scaring away people.

paulcarroty 6y ago
Seems like you still don't understand - the license designed to scare people like you :) Mostly big corps.
- knorker 6y ago
  It's designed to scare away open source hobby programmers? And users? This seems like "avoid success at all costs". The way I see it there are two kinds of potential AGPL software users and contributors: 1. Those who have not read and/or understood the license, and just go with it. They likely will be fine, because who's going to sue John Doe who built his first website in PHP, but didn't publish his AWS script for launching mongoDB? 2. People who nope the fuck out when they read the license, and don't become contributors or users. (1) are violating the license. (2) are not using it at all. So what an AGPL software author does is take the pool of potential users and contributors, and divides them into those who nope out, and those who violate the license. And is that really good honest work you can be proud of? That reminds me more of the music industry of 15 years ago. They gave their customers two options: Have to deal with spinning plastic, or pirate. In this comparison the former is "nope, guess I won't listen to that band, then". AGPL software authors often make the point you are: Well nobody is using plastic, and so what if they pirate the software? They're not profiteering on it, and it was free anyway. Just make a license that says it's not allowed to be used by companies of size greater than X.
  - commoner 6y ago
    > Just make a license that says it's not allowed to be used by companies of size greater than X. That kind of license would not be free or open source. Such a restriction is not allowed in both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. > A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the conditions of the free license covering the software. Putting some of the freedoms off limits to some users, or requiring that users pay, in money or in kind, to exercise them, is tantamount to not granting the freedoms in question, and thus renders the program nonfree. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The AGPL is both a free software license and an open source software license because it ensures certain freedoms for end users, including source code access. Intermediaries who want to host modified AGPL-licensed software, but do not want to release the source code for their modifications, have the option of negotiating a commercial license with the original developer. The commercial distribution of the software would be nonfree, but it would fund development of the free software.
    - knorker 6y ago
      > That kind of license would not be free or open source. I agree. And I'm saying AGPL is de facto not free software, because ~100% of serious (even hobby) installations violate it, even if it's free software de jure. And independent of this I also think AGPL violates freedom 0. E.g. the AGPL explicitly forbids you from running a service combined with proprietary software. You are NOT allowed to run a service by combining AGPL software with a binary blob you don't have source code to. How could this possibly be "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"? If I'm not allowed to run X with Y, how is it "as you wish, for any purpose"? > have the option of negotiating a commercial license with the original developer. Only if ALL contributors (aka copyright holders) agree to this. Copyright reassignment is needed from the beginning of the project, for all contributions.
      - 6y ago
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
  It’s rather effective in that regard. When I worked in BigCorp, the open source contributions had to be reviewed. There was a blanket policy that anything GPL/AGPL was not to be touched under any circumstances.