3 ms·

> There is not a common license that does this. GPL only requires you to give source code to the person you contributed it to. Tony changes only have to go to t

> There is not a common license that does this. GPL only requires you to give source code to the person you contributed it to. Tony changes only have to go to the person who received the software. The changes don't need to be upstreamed. That's why the author used the AGPL, which requires you make source code available to users who interact with your service.

charcircuit 5y ago
The AGPL does not force you to contribute either.
oneplane 5y ago
I'm pretty sure you can make your code so bad that it being available is hardly a 'contribution'. All the AGPL does is force you to make it available, that doesn't mean that anyone is going to be better off for it.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  True, however if a user can see the code being run is "bad" then the user now knows. Not many people are going to exercise this right, but having it as an option is nice.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  If you provide obfuscated code you would be in violation of the license. It might even be a factor in higher damages.
  - hansvm 5y ago
    I think their point was that a lot of code isn't very good, even without being obfuscated. Unless you're implying that unintentional obfuscation of that nature could trigger those clauses?
marcan_42 5y ago
> That's why the author used the AGPL, which requires you make source code available to users who interact with your service. It doesn't, though. That's just the PR the FSF wants you to believe. What it actually does is require you to add a feature to the app to serve or link to its source code if you modify it. If you don't want to actually give your users the source, you can just stick a reverse proxy in front that removes the source code offer. The AGPL is powerless against that. Conversely, it means every time someone forks an AGPL project on GitHub and pushes a commit, they are in violation of the license unless they first change or add the source code offer feature and point it at their repo. The AGPL is extremely difficult to comply with for normal Free Software developers, and doesn't actually protect your rights since it can be worked around. It's a horrible license and nobody should use it. I linked a deeper analysis of it in a top-level comment.
- toyg 5y ago
  > you can just stick a reverse proxy in front that removes the source code offer. That's the sort of "sw developer tries to do law" reasoning that will get you laughed out of court. The spirit of the law is a thing, and (judges can decide that) it applies to contracts too.
  - eru 5y ago
    Split into two legal entities. One modifies, one runs.
    - toyg 5y ago
      You're really going to argue that all your services run through a proxy owned by an obscure company in, say, Panama, that nobody else uses, for reasons different from dodging a licence...? Good luck with that.
      - eru 5y ago
        No, no proxy involved. Company A makes all the modifications you want, but doesn't run anything. Company B takes the software from company A and runs it unmodified. Since company B doesn't make any modifications, the AGPL does not place any obligations on them about publishing anything.

charcircuit 5y ago

The AGPL does not force you to contribute either.

oneplane 5y ago

I'm pretty sure you can make your code so bad that it being available is hardly a 'contribution'. All the AGPL does is force you to make it available, that doesn't mean that anyone is going to be better off for it.

_carbyau_ 5y ago
True, however if a user can see the code being run is "bad" then the user now knows. Not many people are going to exercise this right, but having it as an option is nice.
michaelmrose 5y ago
If you provide obfuscated code you would be in violation of the license. It might even be a factor in higher damages.
- hansvm 5y ago
  I think their point was that a lot of code isn't very good, even without being obfuscated. Unless you're implying that unintentional obfuscation of that nature could trigger those clauses?

marcan_42 5y ago

> That's why the author used the AGPL, which requires you make source code available to users who interact with your service. It doesn't, though. That's just the PR the FSF wants you to believe. What it actually does is require you to add a feature to the app to serve or link to its source code if you modify it. If you don't want to actually give your users the source, you can just stick a reverse proxy in front that removes the source code offer. The AGPL is powerless against that. Conversely, it means every time someone forks an AGPL project on GitHub and pushes a commit, they are in violation of the license unless they first change or add the source code offer feature and point it at their repo. The AGPL is extremely difficult to comply with for normal Free Software developers, and doesn't actually protect your rights since it can be worked around. It's a horrible license and nobody should use it. I linked a deeper analysis of it in a top-level comment.

toyg 5y ago
> you can just stick a reverse proxy in front that removes the source code offer. That's the sort of "sw developer tries to do law" reasoning that will get you laughed out of court. The spirit of the law is a thing, and (judges can decide that) it applies to contracts too.
- eru 5y ago
  Split into two legal entities. One modifies, one runs.
  - toyg 5y ago
    You're really going to argue that all your services run through a proxy owned by an obscure company in, say, Panama, that nobody else uses, for reasons different from dodging a licence...? Good luck with that.
    - eru 5y ago
      No, no proxy involved. Company A makes all the modifications you want, but doesn't run anything. Company B takes the software from company A and runs it unmodified. Since company B doesn't make any modifications, the AGPL does not place any obligations on them about publishing anything.