4 ms·
While many are dismissing your concerns, I do think this is a valid point, at least to some degree. For example, Google institutes a blanket ban on all AGPL cod
by jchw 6y ago
While many are dismissing your concerns, I do think this is a valid point, at least to some degree. For example, Google institutes a blanket ban on all AGPL code:
https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/
Now, one can read into why exactly this may be, though I have a strong feeling it is simply due to the fact that enforcing correct use of the license is harder than usual. Even if you use it alongside only compatible licenses, like GPLv3, it presumably would make the entire distribution subject to AGPLv3 restrictions. GPLv3 virility is a little easier to deal with, and of interesting note the Bazel build system contains some awareness of licenses.
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#licenses https://docs.bazel.build/versions/0.24.0/be/functions.html#l...
On the other hand, one might view this as a benefit. So, I guess it depends on who you ask, really. It's not clear that big corporations would necessarily have an easier time with SSPL or TSL either.
Note: IANAL, please do not take my understanding of how these software licenses work as fact :)
- raegis 6y agoI suspect this is not a popular opinion, but Google's AGPL policy reads like FUD to me. From the first paragraph: "...extremely difficult for Google to comply with..." and "...presents a huge risk to Google..." and later in the document is the best part: "This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code...". All from a company which built itself on GPL software. This reminds me of Steve Ballmer ranting about Linux being a virus 20 years ago. More: "Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office." Assuming Google follows its own policy, this just creates a hassle for its employees. Worse, Google making this public sends a strong anti-AGPL message to other companies. I'd bet $10 RStudio server (AGPL) is installed somewhere at Google (perhaps the commercial version). But other organizations with less sophisticated legal departments might just ban RStudio completely following Google's lead. I would not call Google irresponsible here, but I think it could act more responsibly.
- gpanders 6y agoIt is absolutely FUD. https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html
- jeffbee 6y agoOn the one hand you have a large department of battle-hardened IP lawyers who say that AGPL virality is overbroad and poorly defined, and on the other hand you have a FOSS advocate who says it's fine, so I guess we'll never know for sure!
- josephcsible 6y agoThe FSF and other similar organizations have lawyers too. What do you think their opinion is?
- jeffbee 6y agoThe FSF is not generally a party to the license, so it makes no difference what they think.
- matkoniecz 6y ago> AGPL virality is overbroad Going against interest of Google (and similar companies) is one of main points of AGPL, so this indicated that it works as intended!
- kavalg 6y agoYep, but guess who will win corporate argument inside the company. You may advocate as much as you like, but no legal person will approve the general use of the software in the company. I guess some companies, like Amazon will find their way around the license and still be able to offer it as a service under commercial terms, but not the average Joe in the corporate world.