4 ms·

I often see not 'just' AGPL, but AGPL+Source Attribution Policy (if you contribute to the main repo, you must assign copyright to the owner), and specifically a

by cat199 6y ago

I often see not 'just' AGPL, but AGPL+Source Attribution Policy (if you contribute to the main repo, you must assign copyright to the owner), and specifically around network/web oriented software. This combination is pretty antithetical to the 'spirit' of open source (and especially 'libre software', which AGPL is supposed to be) since it basically ensures hegemony on any commercialization ecosystem to the original developer, unless one manages to create a 'leading fork' where contributions land, since only the original rights owner (who also gets the rights to the sum of all other contributions) has the legal means to commercialize (i.e: provide commercial hosting around) any extensions above and beyond what the community develops.

pydry 6y ago
>This combination is pretty antithetical to the 'spirit' of open source (and especially 'libre software', which AGPL is supposed to be) since it basically ensures hegemony on any commercialization ecosystem to the original developer The spirit of open source was never about giving away the software for free. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html The community was concerned with free speech. You want free beer (freedom of commercialization). AGPL also says that you have to make your changes available. It doesn't say you have to sign a CLA. If you value your "IP", don't. If you value having your changes pushed upstream, do. It's completely up to you.
- cat199 6y ago
  In terms of 'freeing the source' AGPL without source attribution is just as 'libre' as with it - but with it, the effects I mention are possible - therefore it's radically different when used this way than with the license alone, and so has a 'different spirit'. You are right though, that 'libre' software is not about economic freedom but keeping the software 'free'. One of the reasons I'm in the BSD/MIT camp - software doesn't exist in a vacuum.

by cat199 6y ago

pydry 6y ago

>This combination is pretty antithetical to the 'spirit' of open source (and especially 'libre software', which AGPL is supposed to be) since it basically ensures hegemony on any commercialization ecosystem to the original developer The spirit of open source was never about giving away the software for free. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html The community was concerned with free speech. You want free beer (freedom of commercialization). AGPL also says that you have to make your changes available. It doesn't say you have to sign a CLA. If you value your "IP", don't. If you value having your changes pushed upstream, do. It's completely up to you.

cat199 6y ago
In terms of 'freeing the source' AGPL without source attribution is just as 'libre' as with it - but with it, the effects I mention are possible - therefore it's radically different when used this way than with the license alone, and so has a 'different spirit'. You are right though, that 'libre' software is not about economic freedom but keeping the software 'free'. One of the reasons I'm in the BSD/MIT camp - software doesn't exist in a vacuum.