4 ms·

On the other hand, many companies avoid using AGPL code altogether. Code that isn't used can't be improved.

by jforman 15y ago

joelthelion 15y ago
If they avoid it, it's because they are not ready to share the code. Thus their using the code is pretty much useless in the first place...
- mseebach 15y ago
  There are two kinds of enhancements to consider: Enhancements that are specific to your product and enhancements that are general to the library you're incorporating. If Rails had been AGPL, every single webapp based on Rails would have to have its source code released. Now, Rails is not AGPL, does that mean that anybody using Rails (and not making their entire project open source) are "useless"? The vibrancy of the Rails community seems to disagree with that assessment.
  - wcoenen 15y ago
    > If Rails had been AGPL, every single webapp based on Rails would have to have its source code released. Platforms are a special case, where it is usually desirable to distinguish between the platform itself and stuff on top of it. That's why we have the classpath exception for Java: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classpath_exception#The_classpath_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classpath_exception#The_classpa...
    - mseebach 15y ago
      I'd argue that ffmpeg belongs to the platform in a YouTube like usage scenario. Compare with ActiveRecord in Rails: Everything single thing your apps does depends heavily on it, yet, it's still just a piece of infrastructure.
      - beagle3 15y ago
        It boils down to interpretation of what constitutes a "derivative product". I think it would be better if whoever used Rails and made changes to Active Record _had_ to share these changes (a-la AGPL), without having to share the app they built on top. Similarly, it's better if ffmpeg users who offer a service based on ffmpeg were required by the license to share their ffmpeg modifications (the way Google already does without being required to) without a need to share the rest of the webapp.
        mseebach 15y ago
        > I think it would be better if whoever used Rails and made changes to Active Record[...] But doesn't it at this point boil down to an academic argument? Surely Rails benefits massively from being popular, and draconian (which I consider AGPL) licenses might hamper its popularity. I doubt that Rails misses out on significant contributions just because they are not required. Contributing to open source looks good on a CV/employer branding page.
- VMG 15y ago
  > If they avoid it, it's because they are not ready to share the code. Maybe they only can or want to share some of the code, not all of it. The AGPL prevents this.
streptomycin 15y ago
That's the same argument people make against the GPL for normal desktop apps. And yet, GPLed software has been quite successful.

On the other hand, many companies avoid using AGPL code altogether. Code that isn't used can't be improved.

by jforman 15y ago

On the other hand, many companies avoid using AGPL code altogether. Code that isn't used can't be improved.

If they avoid it, it's because they are not ready to share the code. Thus their using the code is pretty much useless in the first place...

mseebach 15y ago
There are two kinds of enhancements to consider: Enhancements that are specific to your product and enhancements that are general to the library you're incorporating. If Rails had been AGPL, every single webapp based on Rails would have to have its source code released. Now, Rails is not AGPL, does that mean that anybody using Rails (and not making their entire project open source) are "useless"? The vibrancy of the Rails community seems to disagree with that assessment.
- wcoenen 15y ago
  > If Rails had been AGPL, every single webapp based on Rails would have to have its source code released. Platforms are a special case, where it is usually desirable to distinguish between the platform itself and stuff on top of it. That's why we have the classpath exception for Java: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classpath_exception#The_classpath_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classpath_exception#The_classpa...
  - mseebach 15y ago
    I'd argue that ffmpeg belongs to the platform in a YouTube like usage scenario. Compare with ActiveRecord in Rails: Everything single thing your apps does depends heavily on it, yet, it's still just a piece of infrastructure.
    - beagle3 15y ago
      It boils down to interpretation of what constitutes a "derivative product". I think it would be better if whoever used Rails and made changes to Active Record _had_ to share these changes (a-la AGPL), without having to share the app they built on top. Similarly, it's better if ffmpeg users who offer a service based on ffmpeg were required by the license to share their ffmpeg modifications (the way Google already does without being required to) without a need to share the rest of the webapp.
      - mseebach 15y ago
        > I think it would be better if whoever used Rails and made changes to Active Record[...] But doesn't it at this point boil down to an academic argument? Surely Rails benefits massively from being popular, and draconian (which I consider AGPL) licenses might hamper its popularity. I doubt that Rails misses out on significant contributions just because they are not required. Contributing to open source looks good on a CV/employer branding page.
VMG 15y ago
> If they avoid it, it's because they are not ready to share the code. Maybe they only can or want to share some of the code, not all of it. The AGPL prevents this.

streptomycin 15y ago

That's the same argument people make against the GPL for normal desktop apps. And yet, GPLed software has been quite successful.