4 ms·

Why Affero? Are there cloud linker tools? Or simply because it is one of the most restrictive open source licenses?

by invokestatic 5y ago

wmf 5y ago
I wonder about AGPL "infecting" proprietary CI pipelines.
- singron 5y ago
  Please read the AGPL very carefully before saying things like this. There is no reasonable interpretation where some cli program in part of a CI pipeline would infect the result of the pipeline (i.e. build artifacts) unless it actually put itself into the result. (E.g. gcc puts a small amount of code from libgcc into the executable, but that explicitly has a different license). The "A" of the AGPL expands the distribution rules of the GPL to include network access but doesn't really expand the virality or combined-works parts. It "infects" your program just as much as any GPL program would.
  - wmf 5y ago
    I don't mean the build artifacts; I mean the CI build scripts and such.
    - infogulch 5y ago
      Is that CI provided as a propietary service? If it applied, it would only apply to users of the CI service. So, publish your custom internal CI code to your own developers.
orra 5y ago
There's certainly cloud IDEs.
eitland 5y ago
Given the goals stated I think it is because it is the most restrictive license. In fact for many years this was the only value I saw in AGPL: to provide a best possible starting point for an upsell while claiming it was all about Free Software.
kzrdude 5y ago
It's pretty clear we need AGPL when anything can be compiled to wasm soon.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  Since WASM blobs would run in the end-user's browser, GPL is sufficient to allow the user to request source. AGPL is more useful for preventing e.g. cloud build services.
Starlevel001 5y ago
> most restrictive It's the least restrictive for user freedom.
- vlmutolo 5y ago
  AGPL contrains the rights of the user. That's its job. The whole point is to be GPL, which prevents users from distributing modifications to the original program, with the addition of preventing users from offering their modifications as a service over the Internet. MIT, Apache, and BSD have none of those restrictions on users. How is APL the "least restrictive"?
  - sagarm 5y ago
    GPL does not prevent users from distributing modifications: it simply requires them to give _their_ users the same freedom if they do so. The AGPL further updates this for the cloud era.
    - vlmutolo 5y ago
      > it simply requires them This is the part where the (A)GPL constrains the rights of its users. Requiring user A to give user B more liberal licensing is constraining the rights of A for the benefit of B. Even if you think it's the "right" way, it's still a constraint.
rui314 5y ago
If it were GPL, it would have been just the same as GNU linker. If it were MIT, no one wouldn't have an incentive to purchase the project. Some companies have a policy to not allow AGPL software at all in their orgs, which should give them more incentive to relicense, no matter whether the policy makes sense or not.

Why Affero? Are there cloud linker tools? Or simply because it is one of the most restrictive open source licenses?

wmf 5y ago

I wonder about AGPL "infecting" proprietary CI pipelines.

singron 5y ago
Please read the AGPL very carefully before saying things like this. There is no reasonable interpretation where some cli program in part of a CI pipeline would infect the result of the pipeline (i.e. build artifacts) unless it actually put itself into the result. (E.g. gcc puts a small amount of code from libgcc into the executable, but that explicitly has a different license). The "A" of the AGPL expands the distribution rules of the GPL to include network access but doesn't really expand the virality or combined-works parts. It "infects" your program just as much as any GPL program would.
- wmf 5y ago
  I don't mean the build artifacts; I mean the CI build scripts and such.
  - infogulch 5y ago
    Is that CI provided as a propietary service? If it applied, it would only apply to users of the CI service. So, publish your custom internal CI code to your own developers.

orra 5y ago

There's certainly cloud IDEs.

eitland 5y ago

Given the goals stated I think it is because it is the most restrictive license. In fact for many years this was the only value I saw in AGPL: to provide a best possible starting point for an upsell while claiming it was all about Free Software.

kzrdude 5y ago

It's pretty clear we need AGPL when anything can be compiled to wasm soon.

jcelerier 5y ago
Since WASM blobs would run in the end-user's browser, GPL is sufficient to allow the user to request source. AGPL is more useful for preventing e.g. cloud build services.

Starlevel001 5y ago

> most restrictive It's the least restrictive for user freedom.

vlmutolo 5y ago
AGPL contrains the rights of the user. That's its job. The whole point is to be GPL, which prevents users from distributing modifications to the original program, with the addition of preventing users from offering their modifications as a service over the Internet. MIT, Apache, and BSD have none of those restrictions on users. How is APL the "least restrictive"?
- sagarm 5y ago
  GPL does not prevent users from distributing modifications: it simply requires them to give _their_ users the same freedom if they do so. The AGPL further updates this for the cloud era.
  - vlmutolo 5y ago
    > it simply requires them This is the part where the (A)GPL constrains the rights of its users. Requiring user A to give user B more liberal licensing is constraining the rights of A for the benefit of B. Even if you think it's the "right" way, it's still a constraint.

rui314 5y ago

If it were GPL, it would have been just the same as GNU linker. If it were MIT, no one wouldn't have an incentive to purchase the project. Some companies have a policy to not allow AGPL software at all in their orgs, which should give them more incentive to relicense, no matter whether the policy makes sense or not.