3 ms·

How does the AGPL differ from some of the other cloud protected licenses that have been discussed here recently? Specifically, the polyform licenses[1] and the

How does the AGPL differ from some of the other cloud protected licenses that have been discussed here recently? Specifically, the polyform licenses[1] and the TimescaleDB license[2]? [1]https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ [2]https://blog.timescale.com/blog/building-open-source-business-in-cloud-era-v2/ https://blog.timescale.com/blog/building-open-source-busines...

andreareina 6y ago
These licenses inherently restrict fields of endeavor, the AGPL does not.
behindsight 6y ago
AGPL is compatible with the OSI's definition of "open-source". Those other two licenses you listed are either fully non-commercial (polyform) or have a clause preventing cloud hosting SaaS (timescale). I am not going to get into discussion about who has the right to define "open-source", but having the right to commercially profit off of the software is one of the key OSI defined tenets which those two licenses lack. In the end, AGPL may be able to achieve the same goal of preventing parasitic SaaS solutions that don't contribute back into the community.
kmeisthax 6y ago
The AGPL, like the GPL, does not restrict your Four Freedoms (unlimited use, modification, distribution, and distribution of modifications). Both, however, require you to distribute source code and sublicense when certain conditions are met. The conditions are just different: GPL requires that you fulfill the copyleft when you give people a copy of the program while AGPL expands that to making it available over a network. Both of these ultimately let you have the same Freedoms as long as you don't take action to restrict anyone else's. Whether or not a copyleft can be considered to be Free is a long-standing argument between the "GNU" and "BSD" schools of thought, albeit the former has long since won out in the broader marketplace of Free Software. I personally hold copyleft as Free, because the conditions that you have to satisfy in order to exercise your freedoms are marginal. In contrast, Polyform and TimescaleDB place a whole host of permanent restrictions on user freedom. It's not "oh you need to give someone the source if you're also giving them a binary", it's "you can't ever host this on a cloud server without paying us". You are defining a particular use of the software that only you can enjoy and nobody else can.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Whether or not a copyleft can be considered to be Free is a long-standing argument between the "GNU" and "BSD" schools of thought No, its really not. Pretty much everyone agrees that copyleft is Free (and Open), they just disagree on whether, and for what purposes, it is a more desirable Free/Open license style than permissive.

andreareina 6y ago

These licenses inherently restrict fields of endeavor, the AGPL does not.

behindsight 6y ago

AGPL is compatible with the OSI's definition of "open-source". Those other two licenses you listed are either fully non-commercial (polyform) or have a clause preventing cloud hosting SaaS (timescale). I am not going to get into discussion about who has the right to define "open-source", but having the right to commercially profit off of the software is one of the key OSI defined tenets which those two licenses lack. In the end, AGPL may be able to achieve the same goal of preventing parasitic SaaS solutions that don't contribute back into the community.

kmeisthax 6y ago

The AGPL, like the GPL, does not restrict your Four Freedoms (unlimited use, modification, distribution, and distribution of modifications). Both, however, require you to distribute source code and sublicense when certain conditions are met. The conditions are just different: GPL requires that you fulfill the copyleft when you give people a copy of the program while AGPL expands that to making it available over a network. Both of these ultimately let you have the same Freedoms as long as you don't take action to restrict anyone else's. Whether or not a copyleft can be considered to be Free is a long-standing argument between the "GNU" and "BSD" schools of thought, albeit the former has long since won out in the broader marketplace of Free Software. I personally hold copyleft as Free, because the conditions that you have to satisfy in order to exercise your freedoms are marginal. In contrast, Polyform and TimescaleDB place a whole host of permanent restrictions on user freedom. It's not "oh you need to give someone the source if you're also giving them a binary", it's "you can't ever host this on a cloud server without paying us". You are defining a particular use of the software that only you can enjoy and nobody else can.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Whether or not a copyleft can be considered to be Free is a long-standing argument between the "GNU" and "BSD" schools of thought No, its really not. Pretty much everyone agrees that copyleft is Free (and Open), they just disagree on whether, and for what purposes, it is a more desirable Free/Open license style than permissive.