4 ms·

Sure, but the GPLv2 was very freedom oriented. Enforcement practically was relatively sparse and more educational I thought. Ie, release the TiVo source code, b

Sure, but the GPLv2 was very freedom oriented. Enforcement practically was relatively sparse and more educational I thought. Ie, release the TiVo source code, but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately.

detaro 5y ago
> but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. They literally made the GPLv3 because they cared about that very much.
- vhold 5y ago
  In case anybody is wondering about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization
- slownews45 5y ago
  The FSF did GPLv3. The folks doing Linux etc did not.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    You asked if the FSF changed.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Don't forget the threat of patents.
- pabs3 5y ago
  Here are some links about the history around Tivo & GPLv3: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
blendergeek 5y ago
> Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately. While the corporate momentum switched to Apache/MIT licenses, there are strong communities built on AGPLv3/GPLv3. * Nextcloud - file hosting (AGPLv3) * Source Hut - git hosting (AGPLv3) * StreetComplete - OpenStreetMap editing (GPLv3) * F-Droid - Free Software "app store" for android (GPLv3) * NewPipe - alternative Youtube frontend (GPLv3) While these aren't necessarily used by large corporations, their individual communities are thriving and strong. The shift toward SSPL and Commons Clause licensing is another argument in favor of AGPLv3 licensing. Amazon/Google often won't touch your AGPLv3 code (and you can still sell proprietary licenses to other companies that can't/won't use AGPLv3).
- slownews45 5y ago
  (A)GPLv3 actually has seen some real growth corporate side -> it's used commonly by proprietary tech companies as sort of a poison license (Microsoft had some of these like SSPL). The way this works is all contributors are required to sign a CLA -> the corporate developer can then use their code under ANY license, and most importantly can integrate into propriatery products or sell to others. The code is then released as an AGPLv3 to be "open source" - but literally the only company with the "super" rights to license / make money off it is the corp dev. It's kind of genius -> so I think we may see more (A)GPLv3 stuff coming this way. The corp developer can then offer for example a hosted version of the software WITHOUT releasing all the related code! But anyone else would have to release their code. You an see how this is done here: https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/cla/ https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/cla/
  - gkbrk 5y ago
    > The code is then released as an AGPLv3 [...] but the only company with the rights to make money off it is the corp dev. Actually anyone that has the AGPL code can sell and/or make money from it. People regularly buy GPL software and pay monthly subscriptions to hosted AGPL software. If you can't compete without having some code as "trade secrets"; that's your failed business model, not a fault of the license.
jcelerier 5y ago
Qt has switched to GPLv3 and is going pretty strong as a community. Can't find the figures for the official forum, but an unofficial one has 75k members.

detaro 5y ago

> but we don't care that Tivo's are locked down. They literally made the GPLv3 because they cared about that very much.

vhold 5y ago
In case anybody is wondering about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization
slownews45 5y ago
The FSF did GPLv3. The folks doing Linux etc did not.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  You asked if the FSF changed.
goodpoint 5y ago
Don't forget the threat of patents.
pabs3 5y ago
Here are some links about the history around Tivo & GPLv3: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877 https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

blendergeek 5y ago

> Is anyone building strong communities on AGPLv3 / GPLv3? I feel the momentum shifted towards Apache / MIT style licenses unfortunately. While the corporate momentum switched to Apache/MIT licenses, there are strong communities built on AGPLv3/GPLv3. * Nextcloud - file hosting (AGPLv3) * Source Hut - git hosting (AGPLv3) * StreetComplete - OpenStreetMap editing (GPLv3) * F-Droid - Free Software "app store" for android (GPLv3) * NewPipe - alternative Youtube frontend (GPLv3) While these aren't necessarily used by large corporations, their individual communities are thriving and strong. The shift toward SSPL and Commons Clause licensing is another argument in favor of AGPLv3 licensing. Amazon/Google often won't touch your AGPLv3 code (and you can still sell proprietary licenses to other companies that can't/won't use AGPLv3).

slownews45 5y ago
(A)GPLv3 actually has seen some real growth corporate side -> it's used commonly by proprietary tech companies as sort of a poison license (Microsoft had some of these like SSPL). The way this works is all contributors are required to sign a CLA -> the corporate developer can then use their code under ANY license, and most importantly can integrate into propriatery products or sell to others. The code is then released as an AGPLv3 to be "open source" - but literally the only company with the "super" rights to license / make money off it is the corp dev. It's kind of genius -> so I think we may see more (A)GPLv3 stuff coming this way. The corp developer can then offer for example a hosted version of the software WITHOUT releasing all the related code! But anyone else would have to release their code. You an see how this is done here: https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/cla/ https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/developers/cla/
- gkbrk 5y ago
  > The code is then released as an AGPLv3 [...] but the only company with the rights to make money off it is the corp dev. Actually anyone that has the AGPL code can sell and/or make money from it. People regularly buy GPL software and pay monthly subscriptions to hosted AGPL software. If you can't compete without having some code as "trade secrets"; that's your failed business model, not a fault of the license.

jcelerier 5y ago

Qt has switched to GPLv3 and is going pretty strong as a community. Can't find the figures for the official forum, but an unofficial one has 75k members.