5 ms·

AGPLv3 doesn't solve the problem of projects being used as components SaaS services, as far as I understand? So companies can still use the projects just fine w

AGPLv3 doesn't solve the problem of projects being used as components SaaS services, as far as I understand? So companies can still use the projects just fine without the need to contribute anything back.

heavyset_go 6y ago
AGPLv3 stipulates that network communication counts as linking, so that putting AGPv3 software behind a SaaS requires that the software's source must be made available to the users of the SaaS. edit: thanks to pydry for pointing out that this interpretation isn't correct. It is more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software over the network, they have a right to its source.
- pydry 6y ago
  Where does it say this? Every interpretation I've ever read says otherwise. E. G. https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275 https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu...
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    From here[1]: > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation of this section. Reading it again, it was wrong of me to say that network communications count as linking, though. It's more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software via network communication, then its source must be made available to them. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
    - pydry 6y ago
      It says if you install an AGPL database and modify it you have to release those changes only.
- chc 6y ago
  I think the problem is just slightly wrong terminology. In GPL terms, a network connection under the AGPL is treated as distribution, not linking. If it counted as linking, that would mean that any software that makes a network connection to an AGPL service has to be AGPL as well.
lrem 6y ago
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
- mschuetz 6y ago
  Mainly talks about linking AGPL projects. What about just "using" AGPL projects? Like you'd use a precompiled ffmpeg, cat, grep, etc. without ever touching the source.
  - lrem 6y ago
    Right at the top: Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google. That's the policy. No exceptions. Don't touch any of it on a corp-issued device.
    - mschuetz 6y ago
      That's google and it's to be expected because many of the largest companies have a strict no GPL policy, naturally including AGPL. Doesn't mean tens of smaller startups won't use AGPL licensed software for their SaaS services without any sort of compensation or contribution to the orginal project. AGPL does nothing whatsoever to stop profitable companies from exploiting Open Source software without contributing back.
      - lrem 6y ago
        That's Google, a company half-built on GPL software and employing hundreds (thousands?) of engineers full time contributing to GPL software. Yet, lawyercats decided AGPL is a huge no-no.

heavyset_go 6y ago

AGPLv3 stipulates that network communication counts as linking, so that putting AGPv3 software behind a SaaS requires that the software's source must be made available to the users of the SaaS. edit: thanks to pydry for pointing out that this interpretation isn't correct. It is more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software over the network, they have a right to its source.

pydry 6y ago
Where does it say this? Every interpretation I've ever read says otherwise. E. G. https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275 https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu...
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  From here[1]: > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation of this section. Reading it again, it was wrong of me to say that network communications count as linking, though. It's more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software via network communication, then its source must be made available to them. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
  - pydry 6y ago
    It says if you install an AGPL database and modify it you have to release those changes only.
chc 6y ago
I think the problem is just slightly wrong terminology. In GPL terms, a network connection under the AGPL is treated as distribution, not linking. If it counted as linking, that would mean that any software that makes a network connection to an AGPL service has to be AGPL as well.

lrem 6y ago

https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/

mschuetz 6y ago
Mainly talks about linking AGPL projects. What about just "using" AGPL projects? Like you'd use a precompiled ffmpeg, cat, grep, etc. without ever touching the source.
- lrem 6y ago
  Right at the top: Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google. That's the policy. No exceptions. Don't touch any of it on a corp-issued device.
  - mschuetz 6y ago
    That's google and it's to be expected because many of the largest companies have a strict no GPL policy, naturally including AGPL. Doesn't mean tens of smaller startups won't use AGPL licensed software for their SaaS services without any sort of compensation or contribution to the orginal project. AGPL does nothing whatsoever to stop profitable companies from exploiting Open Source software without contributing back.
    - lrem 6y ago
      That's Google, a company half-built on GPL software and employing hundreds (thousands?) of engineers full time contributing to GPL software. Yet, lawyercats decided AGPL is a huge no-no.