3 ms·

What would their benefits for releasing it under a permissive license be? AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they

What would their benefits for releasing it under a permissive license be? AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they need to be released, which often means that they are directly unstreamed as that is easier in the long in regard to code maintenance and tarball/source-control hosting for the modified sources. So win-win for all users and the devs. > even if the license's nuances are not well-understood Which nuances are not understood? > which is why they're restricted for use by some tech firms Only those companies that want to actually modify the source and directly integrate it in a proprietary project, iow taking all but giving back nothing. All companies that just want to use it unmodified, just accessing the API or integrate it in a compatible project with releasing any changes are just fine to do so.

ignoramous 5y ago
> What would their benefits for releasing it under a permissive license be? Similar benefits to a work released to the public domain (under permissive licenses such as BSD 0-Clause, CC-0, The Unlicense etc) versus any work that isn't. See the linked apache foundation blog-post in my comment above. > AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they need to be released... This can be achieved with just GPLv3, and to an extent (but not quite) with EPLv2, MPLv2, and LGPLv3. > Which nuances are not understood? Ex A: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-source-redistribution-when-does-it-apply-to-my-code-for-a-server-side-ja https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-s... > Only those companies that want to actually modify the source and directly integrate it in a proprietary project, iow taking all but giving back nothing. Not really. Tech shops also tend to outlaw it for "risks involved". Ex A: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ Even zerodha, which has closed sourced bits, would do well to seek counsel when using listmonk because there's danger they might violate AGPLv3 (ie, the rights of all contributors to listmonk) themselves if they're not careful enough.
- tlamponi 5y ago
  >> AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they need to be released... > This can be achieved with just GPLv3, and to an extent (but not quite) with EPLv2, MPLv2, and LGPLv3. No it cannot be achieved with those in generally, as Elasticsearch and other recent fiascos show. Only AGPLv3 provides protection against "bad actor" SaaS providers. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html >> Which nuances are not understood? > Ex A: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-s... Seems like a pretty clear answer with lots of good sources backing it up. I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more specific in where you see the non-understood nuances. >> Only those companies that want to actually modify the source and directly integrate it in a proprietary project, iow taking all but giving back nothing. > Not really. Tech shops also tend to outlaw it for "risks involved". Ex A: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ I know from personal experience that in practice this is not true in general, there are exemptions and AGPLv3 projects are used (but not derived or directly linked to!) – I cannot give out the specifics though, I'm afraid, so you'd need to take my word on that one.
  - ignoramous 5y ago
    > Only AGPLv3 provides protection against "bad actor" SaaS providers. Elastic, Mongo, Redis et al moved away from AGPLv3 to an even more sterner SSPLv1. May be AGPLv3 isn't enough? Also the comparison seems odd since listmonk isn't in the same category as those; listmonk isn't core to the creator's business / income. > I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more specific in where you see the non-understood nuances. Ref the part of the answer to the question which goes: >> Q: What if in my case... the author of the library insist that the copyleft is triggered even if I am using the library unmodified and that I must redistribute the whole source code, including my own? >> A: In this special case you should never ignore this interpretation (even though it looks clearly incorrect based on the facts I presented here) and you have two options... > ...there are exemptions and AGPLv3 projects are used (but not derived or directly linked to!) My best wishes to those proprietary-software selling tech cos for taking more risk than they should.

ignoramous 5y ago

> What would their benefits for releasing it under a permissive license be? Similar benefits to a work released to the public domain (under permissive licenses such as BSD 0-Clause, CC-0, The Unlicense etc) versus any work that isn't. See the linked apache foundation blog-post in my comment above. > AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they need to be released... This can be achieved with just GPLv3, and to an extent (but not quite) with EPLv2, MPLv2, and LGPLv3. > Which nuances are not understood? Ex A: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-source-redistribution-when-does-it-apply-to-my-code-for-a-server-side-ja https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-s... > Only those companies that want to actually modify the source and directly integrate it in a proprietary project, iow taking all but giving back nothing. Not really. Tech shops also tend to outlaw it for "risks involved". Ex A: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ Even zerodha, which has closed sourced bits, would do well to seek counsel when using listmonk because there's danger they might violate AGPLv3 (ie, the rights of all contributors to listmonk) themselves if they're not careful enough.

tlamponi 5y ago
>> AGPLv3 is a good trade, you get to use it for free but if you make improvements they need to be released... > This can be achieved with just GPLv3, and to an extent (but not quite) with EPLv2, MPLv2, and LGPLv3. No it cannot be achieved with those in generally, as Elasticsearch and other recent fiascos show. Only AGPLv3 provides protection against "bad actor" SaaS providers. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html >> Which nuances are not understood? > Ex A: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5003/agplv3-s... Seems like a pretty clear answer with lots of good sources backing it up. I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more specific in where you see the non-understood nuances. >> Only those companies that want to actually modify the source and directly integrate it in a proprietary project, iow taking all but giving back nothing. > Not really. Tech shops also tend to outlaw it for "risks involved". Ex A: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ I know from personal experience that in practice this is not true in general, there are exemptions and AGPLv3 projects are used (but not derived or directly linked to!) – I cannot give out the specifics though, I'm afraid, so you'd need to take my word on that one.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  > Only AGPLv3 provides protection against "bad actor" SaaS providers. Elastic, Mongo, Redis et al moved away from AGPLv3 to an even more sterner SSPLv1. May be AGPLv3 isn't enough? Also the comparison seems odd since listmonk isn't in the same category as those; listmonk isn't core to the creator's business / income. > I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more specific in where you see the non-understood nuances. Ref the part of the answer to the question which goes: >> Q: What if in my case... the author of the library insist that the copyleft is triggered even if I am using the library unmodified and that I must redistribute the whole source code, including my own? >> A: In this special case you should never ignore this interpretation (even though it looks clearly incorrect based on the facts I presented here) and you have two options... > ...there are exemptions and AGPLv3 projects are used (but not derived or directly linked to!) My best wishes to those proprietary-software selling tech cos for taking more risk than they should.