4 ms·

Technically, you are right. Free software provides freedom for every user to use the code in any way they want, and to distribute their changes to others at the

Technically, you are right. Free software provides freedom for every user to use the code in any way they want, and to distribute their changes to others at their own will - including never. However, I very much understand the sentiment - the same companies that keep all their code closed and mistreat their users with proprietary software use free software so they can make more proprietary software. It is antithetical to the spirit of free software. It is understandable why most hackers are bitter about it. GPL (and AGPL) license was created to prevent such scenarios, but some people disagree with the rules of GPL - calling them "restrictions of freedom" - and use more permissive licenses instead, which allows big companies to do whatever they want with the software, including making it proprietary.

jay_kyburz 4y ago
GPL absolutely has strings attached. I would say the most successful open source projects are all in the GPL family precisely because of the strings attached.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > GPL absolutely has strings attached. Only if you're redistributing the resulting work. If not, you do whatever you like.
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    Note that AGPL (Affero GPL) expands the attached strings to any kind of user-facing network interface. So if you take AGPL code and make a Service-as-a-Software-Substitute with it, you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. In fact, AGPL is so badass that not even Google [0] wants to touch it with a 10 yard stick :) [0] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
    - teddyh 4y ago
      > you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. IIUC, only insofar as the software already does that (i.e. by a download link in the UI). If the software currently lacks such a link, you have no obligation to add that feature, AGPL or not.
      - paskozdilar 4y ago
        Affero GPL [0] states that: > [...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. So the way I understand it is as long as you don't modify the software, you can run the original version as a network service without providing source code. But if you do modify the program and serve it to users through a network interface, you have to include some means of copying the source code. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
        teddyh 4y ago
        Interesting; I may have been misinformed.
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      Only if outsiders can use the service. Internal corporate use of GPL code has zero strings. You're all one entity and no distribution has happened.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > So if you take AGPL code and make a Service-as-a-Software-Substitute with it, you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. So the users of the software can do whatever they want with it with no strings attached then. I don't see how this concept is so hard.

jay_kyburz 4y ago

GPL absolutely has strings attached. I would say the most successful open source projects are all in the GPL family precisely because of the strings attached.

sangnoir 4y ago
> GPL absolutely has strings attached. Only if you're redistributing the resulting work. If not, you do whatever you like.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  Note that AGPL (Affero GPL) expands the attached strings to any kind of user-facing network interface. So if you take AGPL code and make a Service-as-a-Software-Substitute with it, you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. In fact, AGPL is so badass that not even Google [0] wants to touch it with a 10 yard stick :) [0] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. IIUC, only insofar as the software already does that (i.e. by a download link in the UI). If the software currently lacks such a link, you have no obligation to add that feature, AGPL or not.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      Affero GPL [0] states that: > [...] if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. So the way I understand it is as long as you don't modify the software, you can run the original version as a network service without providing source code. But if you do modify the program and serve it to users through a network interface, you have to include some means of copying the source code. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Interesting; I may have been misinformed.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    Only if outsiders can use the service. Internal corporate use of GPL code has zero strings. You're all one entity and no distribution has happened.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > So if you take AGPL code and make a Service-as-a-Software-Substitute with it, you're still legally obliged to provide source code to the users of your SaaSS. So the users of the software can do whatever they want with it with no strings attached then. I don't see how this concept is so hard.