3 ms·

> could've easily been used to comply with the license. The AGPL is pretty much impossibly to comply with. Read the part about "Corresponding Source" and think

> could've easily been used to comply with the license. The AGPL is pretty much impossibly to comply with. Read the part about "Corresponding Source" and think about just how much Corresponding Source is out there. E.g.: If this company ran the service on AWS, then the source code for their provisioning scripts for AWS to run the service would be in scope. And those scripts probably pull in internal libraries. Or not. You may find out after a multi-year court battle that this part of the AGPL is unenforcable. Who knows? It's lose-lose anyway. It's absolutely not worth it to run AGPL. It's not a weird reaction at all. It's probably the only possible action.

atq2119 6y ago
This feels like the kind of scaremongering that was common about open source on general a few decades ago. A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. Why would your example be different?
- kazinator 6y ago
  > A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work If that script relies on that software, it is a derived work. If that script is GPLed, then that software must be GPL-compatible, or else it must be interpreted as falling under the "system library exception". > all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. The tools required to build GCC on a proprietary OS can be regarded as landing under the system exception. It would almost certainly be a GPL violation to add a patch to GCC which causes it to require a third-party proprietary program or script in order to build (something not coming from a target system itself).
  - atq2119 6y ago
    You misunderstood the comparison. I was talking about build systems that invoke GCC as part of building another program. This is comparable to a provisioning script.
- knorker 6y ago
  > A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Probably not, but it is "Corresponding source" in the AGPL license. > Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. No, because: 1. AGPL is not GPL. GPL doesn't have the concept of "corresponding source". AGPL does. 2. Build systems were not built for the purpose of building software X, they were built for building any software. In other words, a completely freestanding source code that can ONLY link with the Linux kernel IS in scope for GPL, as derivative work. E.g. see legal status of out-of-tree binary kernel modules. Or another comparison: Your LD_PRELOAD library that overloads write() will work with any software, and therefore is not derivative work. Your LD_PRELOAD that is made only for a GPL tool does in fact link with it, and probably (don't know if there's a court case on this yet) does mean it's GPL. Your script that can only be used to launch an AGPL software thingy IS "corresponding source" and/or (could be both, a court has not tested this) "derivative work". It's certainly not neither, and therefore it falls under AGPL and must be published.
kazinator 6y ago
The AGPL is designed to be impossible to comply with if any modifications are made to the program which are GPL-incompatible. That's the purpose of the AGPL. It's a political tool for the GNU ideology whose intent it is to prevent the free software from being used for building services that are are also built on proprietary software. Those situations cannot comply with the license, by design. The AGPL is not about the user freedom at all. The user has no freedom because the user has no administrative access to alter the service software. The software can do bad things that are harmful to the users, yet fully comply with the AGPL. The users have to accept that, or not use the service. The FSF wants it that if the users are going to be abused by an online service, at least this should be done with entirely free software, and that's where the AGPL comes in. The AGPL (and copyright licensing in general) is completely the wrong tool for actually doing something to combating the social problem that people are becoming dependent on SaaS that is out of their control.
- Iolaum 6y ago
  The user does have the freedom in forking the project and hosting it elsewhere. AGPL is actually about enforcing that the user has that option.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    No, you don't have that option for any site that matters. For instance, even if your bank uses nothing but AGPLed software, you can't just "git clone" their code and run your own fork of their online banking site. Or: even if Facebook were thoroughly AGPLed, running your own copy would be next to useless because only you and three other people would be there. Not having a copy of the exact software that services are running is not what is gnawing away at your freedom. It's completely the wrong problem to be focusing on.

atq2119 6y ago

This feels like the kind of scaremongering that was common about open source on general a few decades ago. A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. Why would your example be different?

kazinator 6y ago
> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work If that script relies on that software, it is a derived work. If that script is GPLed, then that software must be GPL-compatible, or else it must be interpreted as falling under the "system library exception". > all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. The tools required to build GCC on a proprietary OS can be regarded as landing under the system exception. It would almost certainly be a GPL violation to add a patch to GCC which causes it to require a third-party proprietary program or script in order to build (something not coming from a target system itself).
- atq2119 6y ago
  You misunderstood the comparison. I was talking about build systems that invoke GCC as part of building another program. This is comparable to a provisioning script.
knorker 6y ago
> A script that calls a piece of software is not a derived work. Probably not, but it is "Corresponding source" in the AGPL license. > Otherwise, all build systems that have ever been used with GCC would have to be GPL-licensed. No, because: 1. AGPL is not GPL. GPL doesn't have the concept of "corresponding source". AGPL does. 2. Build systems were not built for the purpose of building software X, they were built for building any software. In other words, a completely freestanding source code that can ONLY link with the Linux kernel IS in scope for GPL, as derivative work. E.g. see legal status of out-of-tree binary kernel modules. Or another comparison: Your LD_PRELOAD library that overloads write() will work with any software, and therefore is not derivative work. Your LD_PRELOAD that is made only for a GPL tool does in fact link with it, and probably (don't know if there's a court case on this yet) does mean it's GPL. Your script that can only be used to launch an AGPL software thingy IS "corresponding source" and/or (could be both, a court has not tested this) "derivative work". It's certainly not neither, and therefore it falls under AGPL and must be published.

kazinator 6y ago

The AGPL is designed to be impossible to comply with if any modifications are made to the program which are GPL-incompatible. That's the purpose of the AGPL. It's a political tool for the GNU ideology whose intent it is to prevent the free software from being used for building services that are are also built on proprietary software. Those situations cannot comply with the license, by design. The AGPL is not about the user freedom at all. The user has no freedom because the user has no administrative access to alter the service software. The software can do bad things that are harmful to the users, yet fully comply with the AGPL. The users have to accept that, or not use the service. The FSF wants it that if the users are going to be abused by an online service, at least this should be done with entirely free software, and that's where the AGPL comes in. The AGPL (and copyright licensing in general) is completely the wrong tool for actually doing something to combating the social problem that people are becoming dependent on SaaS that is out of their control.

Iolaum 6y ago
The user does have the freedom in forking the project and hosting it elsewhere. AGPL is actually about enforcing that the user has that option.
- kazinator 6y ago
  No, you don't have that option for any site that matters. For instance, even if your bank uses nothing but AGPLed software, you can't just "git clone" their code and run your own fork of their online banking site. Or: even if Facebook were thoroughly AGPLed, running your own copy would be next to useless because only you and three other people would be there. Not having a copy of the exact software that services are running is not what is gnawing away at your freedom. It's completely the wrong problem to be focusing on.