5 ms·

Licensed under GNU AGPL, nice.

• i10s 4y ago
  Interesting to know why exactly this license because GNU GPL3 is more common.
  • tpxl 4y ago
    > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. > The purpose of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent a problem that affects developers of free programs that are often used on servers. AGPL is GPL3 but better IMO.
  • cedricbonhomme 4y ago
    indeed, tpxl is right. Affero GPL fits well for Web software (services provided by a server).
• sneak 4y ago
  It's not really nice; the AGPL is considered by many (myself included) to be a nonfree license created by anticapitalist zealots. https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512269055763566592 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267950551867395 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267950551867395 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267952573526026 https://nitter.net/marcan42/status/1512267952573526026
  • cedricbonhomme 4y ago
    " ...the only entities capable of safely using the AGPL are companies using it to dump source ... " I stopped reading here. But this will definitely make my day. I won't even start to list examples of companies (private sector, public sector, research, etc.) that are not in this "only entities".
  • brutusborn 4y ago
    Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source, but isn't providing the revised source pretty easy?
    • tpxl 4y ago
      > Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely. Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitchen sink running remotely near the computer running a single line of AGPL licensed code. > The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source The diff is having to provide source for interacting with a remote copy vs having to provide source for local copies only.
      • rosnd 4y ago
        The "FUD" exists because AGPL is poorly written. There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, 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. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
        • brutusborn 4y ago
          What kind of situations? So far none of the comments criticizing AGPL provide an example.