4 ms·

Politics aside, is there any special reason to use the plain GPL anymore? I guess if you want a copyleft license then AGPL is the way to go (in terms of granti

Politics aside, is there any special reason to use the plain GPL anymore? I guess if you want a copyleft license then AGPL is the way to go (in terms of granting freedom to the users). Unless there's some shortcoming of the AGPL that I'm not aware of.

tyingq 6y ago
Imagine Linux relicensing under the AGPL. I don't think that's the setup Linus wants.
- remram 6y ago
  What would it imply? Programs running on Linux are already considered not "linked" to Linux, which means they can stay closed source without breaking the terms of the kernel's GPL license. That likely wouldn't change if the kernel was AGPL: programs running on it wouldn't need to be AGPL. So the difference would be that for direct interaction with a Linux system, the source code of the kernel would need to be released (the kernel itself, not programs)? That doesn't sound too hard at all.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    The article says linking OR use over a network...
    - remram 6y ago
      The Linux project has made it clear that apps running over it are not linking with it and therefore not derivatives for GPL (and AGPL) purposes. Releasing the source of your kernel is no problem at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mr_toad 6y ago
  AWS and other cloud vendors would have to distribute any changes they made to kernels they run in the cloud (e.g. Amazon Linux). Why would that be a problem?
  - mort96 6y ago
    Yea, the big issue with licensing Linux as AGPL would probably be that Linus explicitly doesn't like GPL3's ant-Tivoization stuff. Requiring SaaS providers to distribute their kernel patches is, I believe, completely in line with the goals of Linus's choice of license.
bombcar 6y ago
GPLv2 -> compatible with the Linux Kernel, well understood, nobody is scared of it. GPLv3 -> prevents tivoization, some companies (see Apple) are scared/annoyed by it. Doesn't stop SaaS. AGPL -> all of the above, makes many companies deathly afraid.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Sure, but these are "political" reasons. Is there any circumstance where a programmer may want to copyleft their software, allowing users to download the source code of the software that they use, except when the software runs on a server? Who cares, today, if the program that you use runs on a server or on your computer? The plain GPL introduces a somewhat artificial distinction between both cases. In the AGPL, all users are treated equally, and granted the right to obtain the source code of program they use, regardless of where the program runs.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    You're asking an inherently political question. Licensing, itself, is political, so you cannot separate political from non-political when it comes to the political topic of licensing. edit: in fact, the act of copy-lefting some work is a political action.
  - uneekname 6y ago
    Security comes to mind. As a developing programmer, it can be nerve-wracking to publish the code for public-facing projects. Not that obscurity is effective security, but it can still be a concern
bscphil 6y ago
Honestly, compatibility with the GPL is a very good reason to still use the GPL rather than AGPL. My preferred licensing arrangement (for server software) would be something like AGPL + non-profit, but I would never actually license something like that because it's too harmful to code reuse. When you're writing code for the free software community, one of your concerns has to be compatibility with the norms of the community. Kind of like web standards, actually: you may think RSS/ATOM are terrible standards and JSON Feed is the only way to go, but if you're writing blogging software, it should probably be able to generate an RSS feed.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Honestly, compatibility with the GPL is a very good reason to still use the GPL rather than AGPL. What do you mean by compatible? the GPL and the AGPL are explicitly compatible to each other.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    I'm referring to this, from the GNU.org license comments page: > It [the AGPL] is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. In my mind, this is a pretty bad limitation. If I'm writing software for the free software community, it seems bad to me if someone working on a GPL project cannot take my code and use it as part of their project without the whole project then being under a mixed license. The terms of the AGPL would apply to a derived work even if all the other code was GPL. While it might sometimes be possible for someone to do everything they want that way, the added complexity means that using part of an AGPL project may be a non-starter even in those cases. The AGPL is also not compatible at all with GPL 2, which many projects are still using.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  > My preferred licensing arrangement (for server software) would be something like AGPL + non-profit Sounds like the Non-Profit OSL 3.0: https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0
crazypython 6y ago
Originally FSF wanted GPLv3 to be AGPLv3, but some corporate GPL users didn't want it. So you should use AGPLv3.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Do you have a source for that?

tyingq 6y ago

Imagine Linux relicensing under the AGPL. I don't think that's the setup Linus wants.

remram 6y ago
What would it imply? Programs running on Linux are already considered not "linked" to Linux, which means they can stay closed source without breaking the terms of the kernel's GPL license. That likely wouldn't change if the kernel was AGPL: programs running on it wouldn't need to be AGPL. So the difference would be that for direct interaction with a Linux system, the source code of the kernel would need to be released (the kernel itself, not programs)? That doesn't sound too hard at all.
- tyingq 6y ago
  The article says linking OR use over a network...
  - remram 6y ago
    The Linux project has made it clear that apps running over it are not linking with it and therefore not derivatives for GPL (and AGPL) purposes. Releasing the source of your kernel is no problem at all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mr_toad 6y ago
AWS and other cloud vendors would have to distribute any changes they made to kernels they run in the cloud (e.g. Amazon Linux). Why would that be a problem?
- mort96 6y ago
  Yea, the big issue with licensing Linux as AGPL would probably be that Linus explicitly doesn't like GPL3's ant-Tivoization stuff. Requiring SaaS providers to distribute their kernel patches is, I believe, completely in line with the goals of Linus's choice of license.

bombcar 6y ago

GPLv2 -> compatible with the Linux Kernel, well understood, nobody is scared of it. GPLv3 -> prevents tivoization, some companies (see Apple) are scared/annoyed by it. Doesn't stop SaaS. AGPL -> all of the above, makes many companies deathly afraid.

enriquto 6y ago
Sure, but these are "political" reasons. Is there any circumstance where a programmer may want to copyleft their software, allowing users to download the source code of the software that they use, except when the software runs on a server? Who cares, today, if the program that you use runs on a server or on your computer? The plain GPL introduces a somewhat artificial distinction between both cases. In the AGPL, all users are treated equally, and granted the right to obtain the source code of program they use, regardless of where the program runs.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  You're asking an inherently political question. Licensing, itself, is political, so you cannot separate political from non-political when it comes to the political topic of licensing. edit: in fact, the act of copy-lefting some work is a political action.
- uneekname 6y ago
  Security comes to mind. As a developing programmer, it can be nerve-wracking to publish the code for public-facing projects. Not that obscurity is effective security, but it can still be a concern

bscphil 6y ago

Honestly, compatibility with the GPL is a very good reason to still use the GPL rather than AGPL. My preferred licensing arrangement (for server software) would be something like AGPL + non-profit, but I would never actually license something like that because it's too harmful to code reuse. When you're writing code for the free software community, one of your concerns has to be compatibility with the norms of the community. Kind of like web standards, actually: you may think RSS/ATOM are terrible standards and JSON Feed is the only way to go, but if you're writing blogging software, it should probably be able to generate an RSS feed.

enriquto 6y ago
> Honestly, compatibility with the GPL is a very good reason to still use the GPL rather than AGPL. What do you mean by compatible? the GPL and the AGPL are explicitly compatible to each other.
- bscphil 6y ago
  I'm referring to this, from the GNU.org license comments page: > It [the AGPL] is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. In my mind, this is a pretty bad limitation. If I'm writing software for the free software community, it seems bad to me if someone working on a GPL project cannot take my code and use it as part of their project without the whole project then being under a mixed license. The terms of the AGPL would apply to a derived work even if all the other code was GPL. While it might sometimes be possible for someone to do everything they want that way, the added complexity means that using part of an AGPL project may be a non-starter even in those cases. The AGPL is also not compatible at all with GPL 2, which many projects are still using.
pritambaral 6y ago
> My preferred licensing arrangement (for server software) would be something like AGPL + non-profit Sounds like the Non-Profit OSL 3.0: https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/NPOSL-3.0

crazypython 6y ago

Originally FSF wanted GPLv3 to be AGPLv3, but some corporate GPL users didn't want it. So you should use AGPLv3.

enriquto 6y ago
Do you have a source for that?