5 ms·
The AGPL is not a non-commercial license, but it essentially functions as one, as most companies aren't willing to comply with it. There are some projects that
by nrook 4y ago
The AGPL is not a non-commercial license, but it essentially functions as one, as most companies aren't willing to comply with it. There are some projects that make their code available under the AGPL, and also let users pay to get access under a different license. Grafana is an example.
- 1letterunixname 4y ago
- PetitSasquatch 4y agoThis is how it appears to me also. I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom. It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.
- cannam 4y agoSource-code freedom is user freedom. It's effectively a sort of guarantee. The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users. (The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)
- rpdillon 4y agoIt's designed to maximize freedom overall, not freedom for one individual. There's some tension between those two goals. I think it's basically the software equivalent of the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- josephcsible 4y agoThe AGPL maximizes both freedom overall and freedom for one individual, so there is no actual tension or equivalence with the paradox of tolerance. The key misunderstanding here is the belief that being able to keep other people from doing things is freedom. That's actually power, and that's all that copyleft licenses take away. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html for more details.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hedora 4y agoGPL 3 has similar (in spirit and mechanism) usage restrictions as the AGPL. GPL3 cracks down on TiVo style lockdowns: Here is an encrypted binary and source code. No existing computer will run either without a secret key you cannot have. AGPL cracks down on Google style lockdowns: You can't have binaries or sources, but you can use this GPL software as long as you agree to a long and ever changing EULA that includes clauses for surveillance, binding arbitration and worse. BSD licenses are only freer for developers, not for end users. The F in FOSS refers to the users' freedoms, not the developer's / vendor's freedoms.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoYep. That's the invention of GPL2 -> GPL3. PS: I love how one gets flagged for expressing an opinion. Public lynching and censorship rather than debate.
- pabs3 4y agoTiVo's lockdown was slightly different: Here is a device running Linux and a proprietary binary. The proprietary binary will stop working if you modify and reinstall Linux. This isn't prevented even with GPLv3. Also even GPLv2 has an implied right to install and run modified versions. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...
- poulpy123 4y agoHow is the AGPL not free ?
- josephcsible 4y agoThe AGPL is free. The point was that although companies are able to comply with it, most are not willing to do so.