8 ms·

> using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license license noob here - can you elaborate on why exactly it is so much better?

by swyx 6y ago

johannes1234321 6y ago
AGPL is a license qualifying the criteria of OSI's OpenSource definition and FSF's Free Software definition. A key point there is that a user can use the software quite freely without restrictions only with the caveat that modifications have to be made available to users. (AGPL is slighqtly more complex) Many of the "modern" licenses allow to look at code, but prevent distribution and/or modification and/or usage. They typically aim for any "proper" usage requiring a commercial license and not giving the guarantee that code can be fixed in case the original vendor stops working on it.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  I don't value OSI's stamp of approval since they were explicitly founded to coopt FSF's effort and make it more corporate friendly. Obviously corporate lawyers would disagree with me. A license that allows all typical freedoms except "use the software to start a SaaS using proprietary infrastructure" is fine by me.
  - ufo 6y ago
    While there are significant ideological disagreements between the OSI and FSF, when it comes to FOSS licenses their definitions are mostly equivalent. There are very few licenses that are recognized by the OSI but not by the FSF, and vice-versa.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    Proprietary infrastructure = All infrastructure essentially. So you're fine with a license that can't be used for SaaS. So basically you're happy for the commercial internet to be powered by proprietary software - with all that would mean for free software.
    - bosswipe 6y ago
      That's pretty much the same as AGPL. A tell about OSI's biases is that AGPL and SSPL are basically the same but since Amazon's propaganda engine ramped up against SSPL it was labeled as somehow completely out of bounds.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        > AGPL and SSPL are basically the same Are you serious? Once you look past the most superficial level, they're not even close.
      - SXX 6y ago
        How are they pretty much the same? AGPL only require the changes to the software itself to be shared under AGPL and it's apply the same requirement for everyone. SSPL require to release source code for every piece of your infrastructure if your business model seems like Amazon. This is descrimination which both FSF and OSI are not allow.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- gibba999 6y ago
  Another major issue is remixing and license compatibility. AGPL is part of an ecosystem. Anything MIT, BSD, current GPL, etc. will freely mix with AGPL. Most of the other licenses, I can't use in any of my projects without running into license compatibility issues.
- zokier 6y ago
  Notably AGPL is also DFSG free, meaning that AGPL licensed software can be included in Debian and its derivatives. I believe its also fine in other major distros (RHEL/SuSE etc).
supercheetah 6y ago
It closes the server loophole in which companies will use and modify Free software they're using just on their servers, but never make those changes available to clients, which is not restricted by just the regular GPL.
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
I don't care so much about the AGPL specifically, but it's a single known license, rather than every time I find a new project having to find out what "interesting" license they cooked up this time.
- swyx 6y ago
  yes but afaict SSPL was kiiinda becoming a de facto "f off AWS" license that was generally becoming standard. thats all any of these vendors want, they're not coming up with new licenses just for shits and giggles. standards evolve over time, it was entirely possible that Grafana could have thrown its weight behind SSPL and helped legitimize it more.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from obstructionist to a more constructive point, where they help evolve the SSPL to address their concerns, while recognizing that it is a copyleft open source license.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      A license doesn't get to be called open source just because it's popular. Look how popular Windows is. Is it open source too?
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        The only thing that differs between SSPL and the AGPL in terms of being open source or not is that one particular group of people has decided one is Open Source(TM) and one is not.
        josephcsible 6y ago
        > one particular group of people I assume you mean the OSI. But it's not just them with a problem with the SSPL. Debian and Fedora both reject it too, independently, for being non-free.

> using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license license noob here - can you elaborate on why exactly it is so much better?

by swyx 6y ago

> using AGPL is so much better than flavor-of-the-week license license noob here - can you elaborate on why exactly it is so much better?

johannes1234321 6y ago

AGPL is a license qualifying the criteria of OSI's OpenSource definition and FSF's Free Software definition. A key point there is that a user can use the software quite freely without restrictions only with the caveat that modifications have to be made available to users. (AGPL is slighqtly more complex) Many of the "modern" licenses allow to look at code, but prevent distribution and/or modification and/or usage. They typically aim for any "proper" usage requiring a commercial license and not giving the guarantee that code can be fixed in case the original vendor stops working on it.

bosswipe 6y ago
I don't value OSI's stamp of approval since they were explicitly founded to coopt FSF's effort and make it more corporate friendly. Obviously corporate lawyers would disagree with me. A license that allows all typical freedoms except "use the software to start a SaaS using proprietary infrastructure" is fine by me.
- ufo 6y ago
  While there are significant ideological disagreements between the OSI and FSF, when it comes to FOSS licenses their definitions are mostly equivalent. There are very few licenses that are recognized by the OSI but not by the FSF, and vice-versa.
- klelatti 6y ago
  Proprietary infrastructure = All infrastructure essentially. So you're fine with a license that can't be used for SaaS. So basically you're happy for the commercial internet to be powered by proprietary software - with all that would mean for free software.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    That's pretty much the same as AGPL. A tell about OSI's biases is that AGPL and SSPL are basically the same but since Amazon's propaganda engine ramped up against SSPL it was labeled as somehow completely out of bounds.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      > AGPL and SSPL are basically the same Are you serious? Once you look past the most superficial level, they're not even close.
    - SXX 6y ago
      How are they pretty much the same? AGPL only require the changes to the software itself to be shared under AGPL and it's apply the same requirement for everyone. SSPL require to release source code for every piece of your infrastructure if your business model seems like Amazon. This is descrimination which both FSF and OSI are not allow.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
gibba999 6y ago
Another major issue is remixing and license compatibility. AGPL is part of an ecosystem. Anything MIT, BSD, current GPL, etc. will freely mix with AGPL. Most of the other licenses, I can't use in any of my projects without running into license compatibility issues.
zokier 6y ago
Notably AGPL is also DFSG free, meaning that AGPL licensed software can be included in Debian and its derivatives. I believe its also fine in other major distros (RHEL/SuSE etc).

supercheetah 6y ago

It closes the server loophole in which companies will use and modify Free software they're using just on their servers, but never make those changes available to clients, which is not restricted by just the regular GPL.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

I don't care so much about the AGPL specifically, but it's a single known license, rather than every time I find a new project having to find out what "interesting" license they cooked up this time.

swyx 6y ago
yes but afaict SSPL was kiiinda becoming a de facto "f off AWS" license that was generally becoming standard. thats all any of these vendors want, they're not coming up with new licenses just for shits and giggles. standards evolve over time, it was entirely possible that Grafana could have thrown its weight behind SSPL and helped legitimize it more.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  This would've been nice. I think we are not far from the OSI having to recognize that SSPL is the future whether they like it or not, and possibly moving from obstructionist to a more constructive point, where they help evolve the SSPL to address their concerns, while recognizing that it is a copyleft open source license.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    A license doesn't get to be called open source just because it's popular. Look how popular Windows is. Is it open source too?
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      The only thing that differs between SSPL and the AGPL in terms of being open source or not is that one particular group of people has decided one is Open Source(TM) and one is not.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        > one particular group of people I assume you mean the OSI. But it's not just them with a problem with the SSPL. Debian and Fedora both reject it too, independently, for being non-free.