4 ms·

I keep hearing the AGPL-makes-corporations-wince argument, and I'm curious: what are the reasons given? Does the AGPL really place such burdens on the organiza

by jka 5y ago

I keep hearing the AGPL-makes-corporations-wince argument, and I'm curious: what are the reasons given? Does the AGPL really place such burdens on the organization such that the benefits of a locked-open, community-guaranteed (albeit popularity not guaranteed) technology aren't worthwhile? Or is it kind of a cargo-culting and cultural-norms phenomenon where people don't use AGPL projects because they've heard that other people don't use them, thus continuing the cycle?

kelnage 5y ago
In one of the of the organisations I mentioned, they had a strict policy against using any GPL dependencies, let alone the AGPL. I tried discussing this with the legal policy person but they were quite resolute - they feared it’s use could “infect” our code and therefore must be avoided. I frankly doubt there’s any sort of cost-benefit analysis being done here. Certainly in my experience it was much more driven by legal uncertainty and risk-aversion.
- jka 5y ago
  Thanks - yep, that matches my rough understanding of the view from the ground too. Statisticians and scientists sometimes talk about 'type 1' errors and 'type 2' errors - false positives and false negatives. I can rarely remember which is which, but I think that generally, software license/contract legal professionals never want to advise a client about something that later turns out to be a liability. That's fine, because it protects their firm's reputation, and it maintains the client's trust (which needs to be strong). But I think that in the context of software licenses, this has led to an overly strong aversion (and indeed self-replicating idea) about the AGPL and other copyleft licenses. (in the context of cost-benefit, it's hard to justify the upside from using and helping contribute towards a software commons, but I think it can be significant, perhaps depending on project context and popularity)
__app_dev__ 5y ago
I the early 2000's to mid 2010's I worked at an Architecture Firm (Buildings not Software) and at the time and likely now all plotters (large printers) depend on a software called Ghostscript. It's AGPL which prevents it from being bundled with any other software unless you negotiate a very expensive contract with their sales people. If a company risks installing it or supporting it company wide then your risk lawsuit and having your business shutdown. The work-around is that for every user's computer IT must manually install the driver (a windows DLL file). To me if I see AGPL it makes me think that it's likely a predatory business with good lawyers; and for this reason I would stay away from it even on personal projects unless there is no alternative.
- jka 5y ago
  Thank you. For me the AGPL is at the complete other end of the spectrum: it's a stake in the ground to say "this software must be allowed to progress", even if the originating entity ceases to exist. As I'll mention in a sibling thread, I think that lawyers can be extremely risk averse in software licensing (it's their professional incentive structure) and that is my guess where this cultural meme about AGPL comes from.

by jka 5y ago

kelnage 5y ago

In one of the of the organisations I mentioned, they had a strict policy against using any GPL dependencies, let alone the AGPL. I tried discussing this with the legal policy person but they were quite resolute - they feared it’s use could “infect” our code and therefore must be avoided. I frankly doubt there’s any sort of cost-benefit analysis being done here. Certainly in my experience it was much more driven by legal uncertainty and risk-aversion.

jka 5y ago
Thanks - yep, that matches my rough understanding of the view from the ground too. Statisticians and scientists sometimes talk about 'type 1' errors and 'type 2' errors - false positives and false negatives. I can rarely remember which is which, but I think that generally, software license/contract legal professionals never want to advise a client about something that later turns out to be a liability. That's fine, because it protects their firm's reputation, and it maintains the client's trust (which needs to be strong). But I think that in the context of software licenses, this has led to an overly strong aversion (and indeed self-replicating idea) about the AGPL and other copyleft licenses. (in the context of cost-benefit, it's hard to justify the upside from using and helping contribute towards a software commons, but I think it can be significant, perhaps depending on project context and popularity)

__app_dev__ 5y ago

I the early 2000's to mid 2010's I worked at an Architecture Firm (Buildings not Software) and at the time and likely now all plotters (large printers) depend on a software called Ghostscript. It's AGPL which prevents it from being bundled with any other software unless you negotiate a very expensive contract with their sales people. If a company risks installing it or supporting it company wide then your risk lawsuit and having your business shutdown. The work-around is that for every user's computer IT must manually install the driver (a windows DLL file). To me if I see AGPL it makes me think that it's likely a predatory business with good lawyers; and for this reason I would stay away from it even on personal projects unless there is no alternative.

jka 5y ago
Thank you. For me the AGPL is at the complete other end of the spectrum: it's a stake in the ground to say "this software must be allowed to progress", even if the originating entity ceases to exist. As I'll mention in a sibling thread, I think that lawyers can be extremely risk averse in software licensing (it's their professional incentive structure) and that is my guess where this cultural meme about AGPL comes from.