4 ms·

Google will just buy a non-AGPL license from the license holders if they really want to use a particular piece of software.

by jupp0r 5y ago

rapnie 5y ago
I presume that then they may attempt to buy on a different license. And that you may say "No" to that.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  I presume that if the software is non-trivial, Google's chequebook can convince most open-source maintainers.
  - rapnie 5y ago
    That is likely true. But I also know FOSS developers who outright rejected very large sums of money being offered for their work. From a combination of principles, values, not needing the money, or not willing to take responsibilities that come from such sale and/or restrictions of freedom that would mean. The "they just buy it" is the cynical assumption that everything always revolves around money. It often does, but not 100% of the time.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - abricot 5y ago
      But now we are not talking about the sale of their work but simply licensing. J have not heard anyone rejecting large sums for licensing g code.
hardwaresofton 5y ago
And that's hopefully why it will be the future of F/OSS :) More money in the hands of F/OSS maintainers and teams will be the rising tide that gives us all even better ecosystems than we have now, I hope.
- Thiez 5y ago
  So the future of F/OSS is all projects taking no outside contributions or requiring copyright assignment? How else will the core contributor(s) be able to sell a license to AGPL code they don't fully own?
  - hardwaresofton 5y ago
    Looks like it's time to update that article. It was primarily intended for self-hostable projects, and as others have discussed it's an issue for libraries! Also to more directly answer your question, the idea is that they sell a custom license to their own AGPL code -- if that code is mixed with code they don't own that is indeed a quandry! The royalty industry has a pretty well established model, so maybe we can use that. Again I want to point out that this is probably not reasonable for library authors (for many other reasons as well), I'm mostly thinking of people who are making software someone might want to rehost. Funny, there actually might be a business in here for managing the licensing and royalties for upstream projects in this future I'm envisioning ever comes true.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > So the future of F/OSS is all projects taking no outside contributions or requiring copyright assignment? How else will the core contributor(s) be able to sell a license to AGPL code they don't fully own? You can do it without copyright assignment by, for example, contributors granting the maintainer a license to relicense their contributions.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
If the license holders are a definable and reachable entity. Once a project takes contributions without a CLA, there can be hundreds or thousands of authors, many of whom are unreachable.
Seattle3503 5y ago
That seems like a win for the maintainer.

Google will just buy a non-AGPL license from the license holders if they really want to use a particular piece of software.

by jupp0r 5y ago

Google will just buy a non-AGPL license from the license holders if they really want to use a particular piece of software.

rapnie 5y ago

I presume that then they may attempt to buy on a different license. And that you may say "No" to that.

Hamuko 5y ago
I presume that if the software is non-trivial, Google's chequebook can convince most open-source maintainers.
- rapnie 5y ago
  That is likely true. But I also know FOSS developers who outright rejected very large sums of money being offered for their work. From a combination of principles, values, not needing the money, or not willing to take responsibilities that come from such sale and/or restrictions of freedom that would mean. The "they just buy it" is the cynical assumption that everything always revolves around money. It often does, but not 100% of the time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - abricot 5y ago
    But now we are not talking about the sale of their work but simply licensing. J have not heard anyone rejecting large sums for licensing g code.

hardwaresofton 5y ago

And that's hopefully why it will be the future of F/OSS :) More money in the hands of F/OSS maintainers and teams will be the rising tide that gives us all even better ecosystems than we have now, I hope.

Thiez 5y ago
So the future of F/OSS is all projects taking no outside contributions or requiring copyright assignment? How else will the core contributor(s) be able to sell a license to AGPL code they don't fully own?
- hardwaresofton 5y ago
  Looks like it's time to update that article. It was primarily intended for self-hostable projects, and as others have discussed it's an issue for libraries! Also to more directly answer your question, the idea is that they sell a custom license to their own AGPL code -- if that code is mixed with code they don't own that is indeed a quandry! The royalty industry has a pretty well established model, so maybe we can use that. Again I want to point out that this is probably not reasonable for library authors (for many other reasons as well), I'm mostly thinking of people who are making software someone might want to rehost. Funny, there actually might be a business in here for managing the licensing and royalties for upstream projects in this future I'm envisioning ever comes true.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > So the future of F/OSS is all projects taking no outside contributions or requiring copyright assignment? How else will the core contributor(s) be able to sell a license to AGPL code they don't fully own? You can do it without copyright assignment by, for example, contributors granting the maintainer a license to relicense their contributions.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

If the license holders are a definable and reachable entity. Once a project takes contributions without a CLA, there can be hundreds or thousands of authors, many of whom are unreachable.

Seattle3503 5y ago

That seems like a win for the maintainer.