4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - rosnd 4y ago
    For example an analytics tool like Piwik couldn't really work with AGPL, as it inherently can't prominently offer anything to users. Unless we're going to interpret "prominent" as "whatever is convenient", this clause restricts AGPL to software which is capable of prominently displaying messages to the user.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      Thanks for the example, but I'm still confused. Can't you just add a button to the dashboard for "download source"
      - rosnd 4y ago
        Well, that dashboard would be a different piece of software. It's a poorly written license, it leaves you with no clear answers in this situation.
- tpxl 4y ago
  The part you quoted says you have to provide the source for the remote software on the same server as the remote software, for no charge. How is that almost impossible?
  - rosnd 4y ago
    There are many pieces of software that users interact with, but which are unable to prominently display anything at all. The AGPL license essentially forbids such uses of software.
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
That is for SSPL license. If I were to invest my time to build something for the community, it has to be GPL/agpl or sspl. That's my personal preference so yeah

by tpxl 4y ago

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.
- rosnd 4y ago
  For example an analytics tool like Piwik couldn't really work with AGPL, as it inherently can't prominently offer anything to users. Unless we're going to interpret "prominent" as "whatever is convenient", this clause restricts AGPL to software which is capable of prominently displaying messages to the user.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Thanks for the example, but I'm still confused. Can't you just add a button to the dashboard for "download source"
    - rosnd 4y ago
      Well, that dashboard would be a different piece of software. It's a poorly written license, it leaves you with no clear answers in this situation.
tpxl 4y ago
The part you quoted says you have to provide the source for the remote software on the same server as the remote software, for no charge. How is that almost impossible?
- rosnd 4y ago
  There are many pieces of software that users interact with, but which are unable to prominently display anything at all. The AGPL license essentially forbids such uses of software.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

That is for SSPL license. If I were to invest my time to build something for the community, it has to be GPL/agpl or sspl. That's my personal preference so yeah