5 ms·

In a large number of cases, this is not an issue at all. Just like we all use GPL-ed kernel and a ton of other stuff. There is also no problem with making AGPL-

In a large number of cases, this is not an issue at all. Just like we all use GPL-ed kernel and a ton of other stuff. There is also no problem with making AGPL-based services available to customers. The caveat is that when you modify AGPL-based code, you need to make the source of these modifications available, too. For some reason, this scares Amazon a lot. Developers know that and use AGPL when they don't want to be screwed by AWS.

jsdwarf 6y ago
I don't get why Amazon should be scared by AGPL. I mean all of their services run on GPLed Linux, why should they be scared by a GPLed Grafana?Even if they had to open-source their Grafana contributions, they could do this in a way that they are worthless for potential competitors (e.g. if the contribution depends on a proprietary Amazon system)
- yorwba 6y ago
  > they could do this in a way that they are worthless for potential competitors (e.g. if the contribution depends on a proprietary Amazon system) That is not allowed. """The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.""" (Emphasis on that last part mine.) """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.""" If Amazon modifies Grafana so it depends on a proprietary Amazon system, the source code for that system is included in the Corresponding Source, and if they allow users to interact with that modified version, they need to provide them with access to the proprietary system's source code.
Iolaum 6y ago
If Amazon was really scared of AGPL then MongoDB wouldn't need to relicense.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  This is a myth that has been repeated far too often. Amazon had made no move on MongoDB _until MongoDB started using the SSPL_. No hosted-MongoDB, no MongoDB-derived products, nothing. MongoDB Inc. instead went after much smaller companies, like mLab, holding their future hostage and thus strong-arming them to sell themselves to MongoDB Inc. a short while before they announced the monopolistic license change that would have effectively shut those small companies down anyway. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing this myth. MongoDB would like you to believe they were David in a fight against Goliath — PR and marketing have always been their strong suit — but they were quite happy playing Goliath themselves while pointing fingers at imaginary Goliaths.

jsdwarf 6y ago

I don't get why Amazon should be scared by AGPL. I mean all of their services run on GPLed Linux, why should they be scared by a GPLed Grafana?Even if they had to open-source their Grafana contributions, they could do this in a way that they are worthless for potential competitors (e.g. if the contribution depends on a proprietary Amazon system)

yorwba 6y ago
> they could do this in a way that they are worthless for potential competitors (e.g. if the contribution depends on a proprietary Amazon system) That is not allowed. """The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.""" (Emphasis on that last part mine.) """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.""" If Amazon modifies Grafana so it depends on a proprietary Amazon system, the source code for that system is included in the Corresponding Source, and if they allow users to interact with that modified version, they need to provide them with access to the proprietary system's source code.

Iolaum 6y ago

If Amazon was really scared of AGPL then MongoDB wouldn't need to relicense.

pritambaral 6y ago
This is a myth that has been repeated far too often. Amazon had made no move on MongoDB _until MongoDB started using the SSPL_. No hosted-MongoDB, no MongoDB-derived products, nothing. MongoDB Inc. instead went after much smaller companies, like mLab, holding their future hostage and thus strong-arming them to sell themselves to MongoDB Inc. a short while before they announced the monopolistic license change that would have effectively shut those small companies down anyway. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing this myth. MongoDB would like you to believe they were David in a fight against Goliath — PR and marketing have always been their strong suit — but they were quite happy playing Goliath themselves while pointing fingers at imaginary Goliaths.