5 ms·

> That’s pretty easy, right? I’m positive that your business has to deal with much more onerous contracts than the AGPL. You're missing the point. They aren't

by Proven 5y ago

> That’s pretty easy, right? I’m positive that your business has to deal with much more onerous contracts than the AGPL. You're missing the point. They aren't choosing between the AGPL and Oracle's EULA. They're choosing between the AGPL and other open source software licenses. First, every time some AGPL code has to change, a business has to review the amount of work that will go to it (patch or rewrite and replace), review the patch including legal review, etc. Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom. If the same code is licensed under a permissive license, I wouldn't have to do anything. Once it's approved for internal use, the overhead of dealing with OSS is almost gone. Regardless of Google's falsehoods, it's undeniable that a permissive license doesn't restrict my freedom. And that's it - I don't need more anti-AGPL propaganda to avoid its use. If I can use the MIT or Apache or BSD licensed code, I will. Even if it's slightly worse, I'll pick it over AGPL-licensed code because in the mid and long term it won't cost me as much. > Google wants to be able to incorporate FOSS software into their products and sell it to users without the obligation to release their derivative works. Who doesn't? Why should anyone bother furthering your AGPL agenda over own interests and the freedom offered by permissive open source licenses? I can't believe this crap topic comes up every so often.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
I think you're both right. AGPL is worse for any SaaS business if you plan to build it around your modifications of that software, period. That's very simple and I think nobody disagrees with it. However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. People need to know this instead of blindly copying "Google says AGPL is bad so we must avoid it at all costs."
- t-writescode 5y ago
  How often do people do AGPL + commercial licensing, I wonder?
  - nabla9 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...
    - t-writescode 5y ago
      What about ones with AGPL *and* commercial licensing?
- tzs 5y ago
  > However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. That might work if all you care about is making sure Amazon publishes their modifications to your software. The most common complaint though is Amazon offering support for the software, thereby removing the need for those who use the software on Amazon to purchase support from the original developer. Making your software AGPL doesn't help at all with that. If Amazon offers support for your software on their platform, they can kill your support revenue even if they make no modifications whatsoever to your software.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    But this is not related to licensing: anyone can offers support for any piece of software and, as far as I can tell, there is no way to prevent that in a license. Otherwise Oracle would have eliminated Rimini Street years ago (the only thing they got is $90M in the recent lawsuit which is almost nothing).
goodpoint 5y ago
> every time some AGPL code has to change, a business has to review the amount of work that will go to it (patch or rewrite and replace), review the patch including legal review This is plain false. AGPL code can be worked on just like any other license or your own proprietary product. > Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom This is like being prohibited to kidnap other people. We are not allowed to do it because it would restrict other's people freedom down the line. Another example is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance As a society, we cannot have the freedom to access and modify code together with the freedom to lock down and proprietize code. They are in conflict. > it's undeniable that a permissive license doesn't restrict my freedom It is provably restricting mine. My android phone and many other devices are full of proprietary stuff that I cannot access, review and trust, despite being built with large amounts of FOSS. Because the licensing allowed taking away freedom from the end user.
rakoo 5y ago
> Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom Your freedom as a middle-man is not important. What matters for GNU licenses is the freedom of the final user. > Who doesn't? Why should anyone bother furthering your AGPL agenda over own interests and the freedom offered by permissive open source licenses? > I can't believe this crap topic comes up every so often. You don't care about user's freedom but only yours, other people feel the opposite. There is ample space for a discussion on both viewpoints.

by Proven 5y ago

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

I think you're both right. AGPL is worse for any SaaS business if you plan to build it around your modifications of that software, period. That's very simple and I think nobody disagrees with it. However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. People need to know this instead of blindly copying "Google says AGPL is bad so we must avoid it at all costs."

t-writescode 5y ago
How often do people do AGPL + commercial licensing, I wonder?
- nabla9 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    What about ones with AGPL *and* commercial licensing?
tzs 5y ago
> However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. That might work if all you care about is making sure Amazon publishes their modifications to your software. The most common complaint though is Amazon offering support for the software, thereby removing the need for those who use the software on Amazon to purchase support from the original developer. Making your software AGPL doesn't help at all with that. If Amazon offers support for your software on their platform, they can kill your support revenue even if they make no modifications whatsoever to your software.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  But this is not related to licensing: anyone can offers support for any piece of software and, as far as I can tell, there is no way to prevent that in a license. Otherwise Oracle would have eliminated Rimini Street years ago (the only thing they got is $90M in the recent lawsuit which is almost nothing).

goodpoint 5y ago

> every time some AGPL code has to change, a business has to review the amount of work that will go to it (patch or rewrite and replace), review the patch including legal review This is plain false. AGPL code can be worked on just like any other license or your own proprietary product. > Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom This is like being prohibited to kidnap other people. We are not allowed to do it because it would restrict other's people freedom down the line. Another example is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance As a society, we cannot have the freedom to access and modify code together with the freedom to lock down and proprietize code. They are in conflict. > it's undeniable that a permissive license doesn't restrict my freedom It is provably restricting mine. My android phone and many other devices are full of proprietary stuff that I cannot access, review and trust, despite being built with large amounts of FOSS. Because the licensing allowed taking away freedom from the end user.

rakoo 5y ago

> Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom Your freedom as a middle-man is not important. What matters for GNU licenses is the freedom of the final user. > Who doesn't? Why should anyone bother furthering your AGPL agenda over own interests and the freedom offered by permissive open source licenses? > I can't believe this crap topic comes up every so often. You don't care about user's freedom but only yours, other people feel the opposite. There is ample space for a discussion on both viewpoints.