3 ms·

Big companies or those with lawyers notice that the AGPLv3 says the software used to make something a service must be licensed under the same license. Much of t

by mfer 6y ago

Big companies or those with lawyers notice that the AGPLv3 says the software used to make something a service must be licensed under the same license. Much of that software isn't something a company controls. For example, you put the AGPLv3 software behind a load balancer. Does that software need to be AGPLv3? Some would say so and how often can a company control that license. Companies with more are conservative on their risk. Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice

ghaff 6y ago
Yeah. The boundaries of the GPL are mostly clear because they're essentially tied to Unix linking behavior. There are some edge case--I know people who don't think you shouldn't be able to load binary blobs for example--but mostly. There doesn't seem to be the same sort of clear consensus over how broadly the AGPL interacts with other code on the network.
pydry 6y ago
>Does that software need to be AGPLv3? No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate rather than mitigate risk and who try to grab every scrap of IP for the company. This is the kind of company you're talking about. This is also why many try to get you to sign away every profitable idea you've ever dreamed up in the shower: a combination of extreme risk aversion and flagrant greed. I'd even venture as far as to say it's a feature not a bug if this type of company were forced to use expensive proprietary software or older, shittier versions.
- rrdharan 6y ago
  > No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. This is not true. > A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate rather than mitigate risk and who try to grab every scrap of IP for the company. This is the kind of company you're talking about. I'm guessing you would claim all of the giants as obviously falling into this category (they all have bad lawyers). They are all also the only ones worth suing. Note that it's not just FAAMNG, Square made this determination too: https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-services-community-raise-concerns-about-restriction-to-use-the-agpl-licensed-software-in-online-stores/ https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-service... I'd love to hear what Stripe thinks about using AGPL-licensed software. Basically I've yet to hear of a large (> $1B revenue +) SaaS company that doesn't have concerns about using AGPL software as a core part of its service offering. I'd love to hear some counterexamples...
  - pydry 6y ago
    >This is not true. Please stop spreading misinformation. >I'm guessing you would claim all of the giants as obviously falling into this category Google definitely counts as a company that tries to grab every scrap of IP for itself. They also heavily customize everything and compete in all software markets. For them this is ideological because it interferes with their profits as a monopoly. They want the license dead and buried because it targets them. This is a feature, not a bug. Small Podunk companies that shy away from installing mongo, OTOH are being legitimately dumb.

by mfer 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

Yeah. The boundaries of the GPL are mostly clear because they're essentially tied to Unix linking behavior. There are some edge case--I know people who don't think you shouldn't be able to load binary blobs for example--but mostly. There doesn't seem to be the same sort of clear consensus over how broadly the AGPL interacts with other code on the network.

pydry 6y ago

>Does that software need to be AGPLv3? No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate rather than mitigate risk and who try to grab every scrap of IP for the company. This is the kind of company you're talking about. This is also why many try to get you to sign away every profitable idea you've ever dreamed up in the shower: a combination of extreme risk aversion and flagrant greed. I'd even venture as far as to say it's a feature not a bug if this type of company were forced to use expensive proprietary software or older, shittier versions.

rrdharan 6y ago
> No. It doesn't "infect" the load balancer. There's zero ambiguity about this. This is not true. > A lot of companies have bad lawyers who try to eliminate rather than mitigate risk and who try to grab every scrap of IP for the company. This is the kind of company you're talking about. I'm guessing you would claim all of the giants as obviously falling into this category (they all have bad lawyers). They are all also the only ones worth suing. Note that it's not just FAAMNG, Square made this determination too: https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-services-community-raise-concerns-about-restriction-to-use-the-agpl-licensed-software-in-online-stores/ https://hub.packtpub.com/square-updated-its-terms-of-service... I'd love to hear what Stripe thinks about using AGPL-licensed software. Basically I've yet to hear of a large (> $1B revenue +) SaaS company that doesn't have concerns about using AGPL software as a core part of its service offering. I'd love to hear some counterexamples...
- pydry 6y ago
  >This is not true. Please stop spreading misinformation. >I'm guessing you would claim all of the giants as obviously falling into this category Google definitely counts as a company that tries to grab every scrap of IP for itself. They also heavily customize everything and compete in all software markets. For them this is ideological because it interferes with their profits as a monopoly. They want the license dead and buried because it targets them. This is a feature, not a bug. Small Podunk companies that shy away from installing mongo, OTOH are being legitimately dumb.