6 ms·

This is a good point and I'd like to suggest (without being certain) that the AGPL is a good solution. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed spec

by Y_Y 4y ago

This is a good point and I'd like to suggest (without being certain) that the AGPL is a good solution. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that ... the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version.

wongarsu 4y ago
Imho if you're ok with the GPL v3, the AGPL v3 is almost always the better choice. The spirit of the GPL is "if you change it for anything other than internal use, you have to distribute the changes", and the AGPL just logically extends the enforcement of this to services provided over the internet. The AGPL v3 and GPL v3 also contain provisions to make them compatible with each other (resulting in AGPL terms for the combined work, but the GPL parts remain GPL). The FSF goes a bit more into detail on this: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t...
- bawolff 4y ago
  FWIW, i dont like the ambiguity of what is "configuration" and what is "code". I feel its a bit unclear. I also think its a bit problematic taken in the absolute, sometimes you have security patches you want to deploy and test out for a week before making the issue public, or perhaps emergency patches for sudden (downtime causing) issues.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I don't think the nitty gritty details of the AGPLv3 matter much in practice. Those details matter most to the sort of organizations that fear lawsuits and consult with lawyers, and such organizations will likely not use AGPLv3 licensed code at all. AGPLv3 is thus a de facto 'hobbyists only' license, and hobbyists by in large don't go around suing each other; generally they just make good faith efforts to respect each others licenses and maybe use social ostracism when somebody steps over the line. Since hobbyists don't take their community disputes to court, the technical legal minutia of the license doesn't matter to most of them.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      I still think details matter because it helps determine what is good faith following the license. Ambiguity also helps spread fud, which makes it harder for big companies to contribute and reuse such software.
sneak 4y ago
Many people find the AGPL to be a nonfree license, myself included.
- ebiester 4y ago
  What isn't free about it? As a corporation, I might not want to use it in conjunction with my code, but that's the point. You are free to do what you want, but you in turn must share your code. Or you engage with the owner to make a financial arrangement for a separate license.
  - sneak 4y ago
    In short: It prohibits you from not sharing your code based on whether or not the ethernet cable is or is not plugged in to your machine. This is like nonfree usage restrictions on otherwise free software, like the famous (if unenforceable) “can not be used for evil” license clause.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Right but which freedom does that restrict that's not in the spirit of the gpl? I.e. the gpl prohibits you not sharing code if you distribute the binary. What is the philosophical underpinning of "sharing binary" not being a restriction but "ethernet" being a restriction. The evil thing is not similar because you are discriminating against a field of endevour (similar to licenses that say educational use only, non-commercial only or non-military only). It seems to be a very different type of restriction.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      that's not right. in my understanding the intention of the AGPL is to share code with users of a program, even if the users didn't get a copy of the program. therefore the AGPL shouldn't force you to share code if the program runs on a server. but it should force you to share code if the program can be accessed by a user. this may even apply to running something like a kiosk device where users interact with a program on a device they don't own.
    - 4y ago

by Y_Y 4y ago

wongarsu 4y ago

Imho if you're ok with the GPL v3, the AGPL v3 is almost always the better choice. The spirit of the GPL is "if you change it for anything other than internal use, you have to distribute the changes", and the AGPL just logically extends the enforcement of this to services provided over the internet. The AGPL v3 and GPL v3 also contain provisions to make them compatible with each other (resulting in AGPL terms for the combined work, but the GPL parts remain GPL). The FSF goes a bit more into detail on this: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t...

bawolff 4y ago
FWIW, i dont like the ambiguity of what is "configuration" and what is "code". I feel its a bit unclear. I also think its a bit problematic taken in the absolute, sometimes you have security patches you want to deploy and test out for a week before making the issue public, or perhaps emergency patches for sudden (downtime causing) issues.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't think the nitty gritty details of the AGPLv3 matter much in practice. Those details matter most to the sort of organizations that fear lawsuits and consult with lawyers, and such organizations will likely not use AGPLv3 licensed code at all. AGPLv3 is thus a de facto 'hobbyists only' license, and hobbyists by in large don't go around suing each other; generally they just make good faith efforts to respect each others licenses and maybe use social ostracism when somebody steps over the line. Since hobbyists don't take their community disputes to court, the technical legal minutia of the license doesn't matter to most of them.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I still think details matter because it helps determine what is good faith following the license. Ambiguity also helps spread fud, which makes it harder for big companies to contribute and reuse such software.

sneak 4y ago

Many people find the AGPL to be a nonfree license, myself included.

ebiester 4y ago
What isn't free about it? As a corporation, I might not want to use it in conjunction with my code, but that's the point. You are free to do what you want, but you in turn must share your code. Or you engage with the owner to make a financial arrangement for a separate license.
- sneak 4y ago
  In short: It prohibits you from not sharing your code based on whether or not the ethernet cable is or is not plugged in to your machine. This is like nonfree usage restrictions on otherwise free software, like the famous (if unenforceable) “can not be used for evil” license clause.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Right but which freedom does that restrict that's not in the spirit of the gpl? I.e. the gpl prohibits you not sharing code if you distribute the binary. What is the philosophical underpinning of "sharing binary" not being a restriction but "ethernet" being a restriction. The evil thing is not similar because you are discriminating against a field of endevour (similar to licenses that say educational use only, non-commercial only or non-military only). It seems to be a very different type of restriction.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    that's not right. in my understanding the intention of the AGPL is to share code with users of a program, even if the users didn't get a copy of the program. therefore the AGPL shouldn't force you to share code if the program runs on a server. but it should force you to share code if the program can be accessed by a user. this may even apply to running something like a kiosk device where users interact with a program on a device they don't own.
  - 4y ago