7 ms·

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

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.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  > whether or not the ethernet cable is or is not plugged in to your machine That's not even remotely near what it is.
at-fates-hands 4y ago
>> As a corporation, I might not want to use it in conjunction with my code, but that's the point. I've worked for several large corporations and were in the throes of a major project. Using an Open Source tool would've cut a lot of our dev times by many hours. Three out of three times, all three team leads and managers said "no" to using open source. We had to build several large components from scratch, which did lead to extended development timelines, a ton of working late at night and several "crunch" weekends. Their rationale? They didn't want to have to maintain a piece of software that was open source. The resounding opinion was it was "dangerous" and not safe - because someone could check in a malicious piece of code and that could end up in our very large, enterprise application when we needed to update it. Nobody wanted to be on the hook if that ever happened. In the end, it seemed like it was more about upper management types playing CYA instead of trying to put out a solid product.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  I don't think there is any computer currently in use with 0 open source on it.

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.
the_gipsy 4y ago
> whether or not the ethernet cable is or is not plugged in to your machine That's not even remotely near what it is.

at-fates-hands 4y ago

>> As a corporation, I might not want to use it in conjunction with my code, but that's the point. I've worked for several large corporations and were in the throes of a major project. Using an Open Source tool would've cut a lot of our dev times by many hours. Three out of three times, all three team leads and managers said "no" to using open source. We had to build several large components from scratch, which did lead to extended development timelines, a ton of working late at night and several "crunch" weekends. Their rationale? They didn't want to have to maintain a piece of software that was open source. The resounding opinion was it was "dangerous" and not safe - because someone could check in a malicious piece of code and that could end up in our very large, enterprise application when we needed to update it. Nobody wanted to be on the hook if that ever happened. In the end, it seemed like it was more about upper management types playing CYA instead of trying to put out a solid product.

LtWorf 4y ago
I don't think there is any computer currently in use with 0 open source on it.