7 ms·

> - Using a copyleft license like AGPL makes this an automatic non-starter for most businesses, no matter how impressive your tech might be. You'll have a lot m

by ryan29 4y ago

> - Using a copyleft license like AGPL makes this an automatic non-starter for most businesses, no matter how impressive your tech might be. You'll have a lot more luck with mid-size and enterprise adoption with an MIT license. What makes the AGPL unattractive? I thought it was basically just the GPL with a limitation on using the software to provide a SaaS product. You don't even have to contribute unpublished changes, right? Before reading your comment I actually checked the licensing in the repo because I was thinking the exact opposite; using MIT would be a mistake because it's too easy to undermine the turnkey offering by selling a competing service without the cost of development.

bsaul 4y ago
My 2 cents : In an ecosystem like this you may want to have businesses build extensions or plugins that they'd sell. GPL has this reputation of spreading to everything it touches, and as such would scare them away.
- homarp 4y ago
  like wordpress plugin marketplace?
  - elkos 4y ago
    I wish
light_hue_1 4y ago
AGPL is banned from every corporation I have ever seen. Because it's viral even when it is used internally, you might end up having to release things you never expected and that are very sensitive. It would be insane to allow anyone to use AGPL code in any corporate environment.
- boucher 4y ago
  MongoDB is effectively licensed under the AGPL and seems to have no problem being used by corporations of all sizes.
  - ZekeSulastin 4y ago
    Wouldn’t those corporations just purchase the commercial license MongoDB offers, though?
    - boucher 4y ago
      Maybe? The commercial version has some extra features, but if you don't need them then there's probably no need to. I imagine there is more value in paying for a support contract.
  - PeterZaitsev 4y ago
    MongoDB is licenses as SSPL which is non Open Source license all together BUT this is only if you are not paying for MongoDB. If you do chances are you're using MongoDB Enterprise which is licensed under commercial license or MongoDB Atlas all together
    - boucher 4y ago
      SSPL is a nearly verbatim copy of AGPL, except one section. It is more restrictive than the AGPL, in a way that many feel is anti-competitive, which is why it's not considered Open Source by many, but also in a way which doesn't really change the argument here IMO.
      - jabo 4y ago
        In fact, here's a diff of AGPL and SSPL, provided by MongoDB: https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compared-to-AGPL.pdf https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... They took AGPL and modified it a bit to arrive at SSPL (See Section 13).
  - shagie 4y ago
boucher 4y ago
There's a lot of FUD out there about GPL licenses and they've become pretty unpopular over the last decade. There are trade-offs, but there's nothing wrong with using the AGPL if that aligns with your own goals and values.
bloblaw 4y ago
Here's Google's stance on why they ban AGPL software: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl... > The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. > This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. This is triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a remote network interface, so it does not even require that the product or service is actually distributed. > Because Google's core products are services that users interact with over a remote network interface (Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube), the consequences of an engineer accidentally depending on AGPL for one of these services are so great that we maintain an aggressively-broad ban on all AGPL software to doubly-ensure that AGPL could never be incorporated in these services in any manner. FWIW, every company I've ever worked at bans AGPL products / code.
- jacooper 4y ago
  > This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. This is triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a remote network interface, so it does not even require that the product or service is actually distributed.. This is the entire point. The goal is to stop the SAAS loophole.
  - zmmmmm 4y ago
    the toxic combination is (a) virality and (b) remote end user access triggering the GPL rights. You could have one but not the other. We really need "LAGPL" to parallel LGPL, to make it clear that there is a clear and well defined way to stop the "remote access" part of AGPL from propagating accidentally into proprietary code.
  - naasking 4y ago
    In other words, to stop the process of people no longer owning their software and data and being subjected to someone else's decisions about whether a feature or service is important or should be deprecated.
nonameiguess 4y ago
In this case, there is nothing at all wrong with a GPL license. Everyone is answering from the perspective of a software company. That isn't who this product seems to be targeting. It's targeting businesses that sell physical goods and need a virtual storefront to do that. They aren't looking to fork this and repackage it as a different product. The purpose of it being open source at all is so they can more easily self-host it. If you self-host an application you don't fork and modify, there is nothing for you to publish. The source was already published by the person you got the code from in the first place.
- shrimpx 4y ago
  Thank you for adding practical sanity to this thread.
- noam_compsci 4y ago
  This ignores the fact that AGPL has no strict definition of “forking/modifying”. So, adding text/marketing copy (see user comment on a restaurant app use case) can be seen as a modification.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    For an app like this, that would typically be configuration in the database. (Think WordPress; are you writing your marketing copy in plugin source code or are you writing it using the page editing functionality?) The AGPL doesn’t require you to publish your database.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tzs 4y ago
> What makes the AGPL unattractive? I thought it was basically just the GPL with a limitation on using the software to provide a SaaS product. You don't even have to contribute unpublished changes, right? The things AGPL adds to GPL don't just affect people trying to do a SaaS offering of the program. If you modify it and users interact with it over a computer network you have to make source for your modified version available to them. For example suppose it was software to add online ordering to restaurants. A restaurant modifies its copy so that it can be given the recipes of the items they sell and the modified software uses that information to allow customers to easily exclude items they might be allergic to or that violate their religious or ethical eating rules. If that restaurant wants to use that as a competitive advantage over other restaurants they aren't going to want to have to give away their modifications, so aren't going to want to use AGPL software. They'd probably be fine with GPL software.
- Kerrick 4y ago
  > If that restaurant wants to use that as a competitive advantage over other restaurants they aren't going to want to have to give away their modifications, so aren't going to want to use AGPL software. That's exactly the kinds of scenario the AGPL was written to avoid, right? The free software movement doesn't see software as a competitive advantage worth protecting; software is information that should be free. To put it another way, if somebody releases software under a license that says "You may use and modify this for free, but you must contribute your changes back to the world," then your scenario seems perfectly fair.
- iam-TJ 4y ago
  The kind of arguments you raise here have always, to me, basically looked like: "I want something for nothing" Or in more detail: "I want to take something you created and agreed to share with me (on the proviso I like-wise share any changes as an exchange of value). I deem your software valuable to me but I won't be paying you money for it. I'll add something else to it so it fits my use-case. But, I refuse/object to sharing my changes because they're valuable."
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
vegetablepotpie 4y ago
As someone working on a product that uses open source, GPL makes development more complex. With a permissive license, I can make a decision, with my manager, to use a technology based on its merit. Office bureaucrats get weird when you talk about the GPL. When using it, I have to involve lawyers in the company, they don’t understand why the technology is important, but they have a bunch of questions, and to answer them it takes up time from my team. Upper management is involved and wants to know if we can use anything else, or they’ll phrase it as a question like: why can’t you use anything else? You have to deal with a lot more office politics when you use GPL instead of doing development work. So I’d say that’s the biggest downside for developers is that it wastes their time.
adrr 4y ago
Exposing the API/Web pages is considered distribution.
twothamendment 4y ago
"What makes the AGPL unattractive?" I won't pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know that when we were acquired we had to list ever piece of software we used and which licence it was under. They were very concerned about copy left. We didn't have any, so I don't know how that would have changed things. MIT was what they were hoping to see.
npteljes 4y ago
>What makes the AGPL unattractive? My two cents: it juts isn't in business culture to contribute to public good.

by ryan29 4y ago

bsaul 4y ago

My 2 cents : In an ecosystem like this you may want to have businesses build extensions or plugins that they'd sell. GPL has this reputation of spreading to everything it touches, and as such would scare them away.

homarp 4y ago
like wordpress plugin marketplace?
- elkos 4y ago
  I wish

light_hue_1 4y ago

AGPL is banned from every corporation I have ever seen. Because it's viral even when it is used internally, you might end up having to release things you never expected and that are very sensitive. It would be insane to allow anyone to use AGPL code in any corporate environment.

boucher 4y ago
MongoDB is effectively licensed under the AGPL and seems to have no problem being used by corporations of all sizes.
- ZekeSulastin 4y ago
  Wouldn’t those corporations just purchase the commercial license MongoDB offers, though?
  - boucher 4y ago
    Maybe? The commercial version has some extra features, but if you don't need them then there's probably no need to. I imagine there is more value in paying for a support contract.
- PeterZaitsev 4y ago
  MongoDB is licenses as SSPL which is non Open Source license all together BUT this is only if you are not paying for MongoDB. If you do chances are you're using MongoDB Enterprise which is licensed under commercial license or MongoDB Atlas all together
  - boucher 4y ago
    SSPL is a nearly verbatim copy of AGPL, except one section. It is more restrictive than the AGPL, in a way that many feel is anti-competitive, which is why it's not considered Open Source by many, but also in a way which doesn't really change the argument here IMO.
    - jabo 4y ago
      In fact, here's a diff of AGPL and SSPL, provided by MongoDB: https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compared-to-AGPL.pdf https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare... They took AGPL and modified it a bit to arrive at SSPL (See Section 13).
- shagie 4y ago

boucher 4y ago

There's a lot of FUD out there about GPL licenses and they've become pretty unpopular over the last decade. There are trade-offs, but there's nothing wrong with using the AGPL if that aligns with your own goals and values.

bloblaw 4y ago

Here's Google's stance on why they ban AGPL software: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl... > The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. > This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. This is triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a remote network interface, so it does not even require that the product or service is actually distributed. > Because Google's core products are services that users interact with over a remote network interface (Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube), the consequences of an engineer accidentally depending on AGPL for one of these services are so great that we maintain an aggressively-broad ban on all AGPL software to doubly-ensure that AGPL could never be incorporated in these services in any manner. FWIW, every company I've ever worked at bans AGPL products / code.

jacooper 4y ago
> This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. This is triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a remote network interface, so it does not even require that the product or service is actually distributed.. This is the entire point. The goal is to stop the SAAS loophole.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  the toxic combination is (a) virality and (b) remote end user access triggering the GPL rights. You could have one but not the other. We really need "LAGPL" to parallel LGPL, to make it clear that there is a clear and well defined way to stop the "remote access" part of AGPL from propagating accidentally into proprietary code.
- naasking 4y ago
  In other words, to stop the process of people no longer owning their software and data and being subjected to someone else's decisions about whether a feature or service is important or should be deprecated.

nonameiguess 4y ago

In this case, there is nothing at all wrong with a GPL license. Everyone is answering from the perspective of a software company. That isn't who this product seems to be targeting. It's targeting businesses that sell physical goods and need a virtual storefront to do that. They aren't looking to fork this and repackage it as a different product. The purpose of it being open source at all is so they can more easily self-host it. If you self-host an application you don't fork and modify, there is nothing for you to publish. The source was already published by the person you got the code from in the first place.

shrimpx 4y ago
Thank you for adding practical sanity to this thread.
noam_compsci 4y ago
This ignores the fact that AGPL has no strict definition of “forking/modifying”. So, adding text/marketing copy (see user comment on a restaurant app use case) can be seen as a modification.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  For an app like this, that would typically be configuration in the database. (Think WordPress; are you writing your marketing copy in plugin source code or are you writing it using the page editing functionality?) The AGPL doesn’t require you to publish your database.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tzs 4y ago

> What makes the AGPL unattractive? I thought it was basically just the GPL with a limitation on using the software to provide a SaaS product. You don't even have to contribute unpublished changes, right? The things AGPL adds to GPL don't just affect people trying to do a SaaS offering of the program. If you modify it and users interact with it over a computer network you have to make source for your modified version available to them. For example suppose it was software to add online ordering to restaurants. A restaurant modifies its copy so that it can be given the recipes of the items they sell and the modified software uses that information to allow customers to easily exclude items they might be allergic to or that violate their religious or ethical eating rules. If that restaurant wants to use that as a competitive advantage over other restaurants they aren't going to want to have to give away their modifications, so aren't going to want to use AGPL software. They'd probably be fine with GPL software.

Kerrick 4y ago
> If that restaurant wants to use that as a competitive advantage over other restaurants they aren't going to want to have to give away their modifications, so aren't going to want to use AGPL software. That's exactly the kinds of scenario the AGPL was written to avoid, right? The free software movement doesn't see software as a competitive advantage worth protecting; software is information that should be free. To put it another way, if somebody releases software under a license that says "You may use and modify this for free, but you must contribute your changes back to the world," then your scenario seems perfectly fair.
iam-TJ 4y ago
The kind of arguments you raise here have always, to me, basically looked like: "I want something for nothing" Or in more detail: "I want to take something you created and agreed to share with me (on the proviso I like-wise share any changes as an exchange of value). I deem your software valuable to me but I won't be paying you money for it. I'll add something else to it so it fits my use-case. But, I refuse/object to sharing my changes because they're valuable."
- forgotusername6 4y ago

vegetablepotpie 4y ago

As someone working on a product that uses open source, GPL makes development more complex. With a permissive license, I can make a decision, with my manager, to use a technology based on its merit. Office bureaucrats get weird when you talk about the GPL. When using it, I have to involve lawyers in the company, they don’t understand why the technology is important, but they have a bunch of questions, and to answer them it takes up time from my team. Upper management is involved and wants to know if we can use anything else, or they’ll phrase it as a question like: why can’t you use anything else? You have to deal with a lot more office politics when you use GPL instead of doing development work. So I’d say that’s the biggest downside for developers is that it wastes their time.

adrr 4y ago

Exposing the API/Web pages is considered distribution.

twothamendment 4y ago

"What makes the AGPL unattractive?" I won't pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know that when we were acquired we had to list ever piece of software we used and which licence it was under. They were very concerned about copy left. We didn't have any, so I don't know how that would have changed things. MIT was what they were hoping to see.

npteljes 4y ago

>What makes the AGPL unattractive? My two cents: it juts isn't in business culture to contribute to public good.