3 ms·

> Cases like these are the reason why the AGPL exists Exactly. Not sure why they Ghost doesn't use AGPL. Still, it would have been kind of fair from Substack t

by shafyy 4y ago

> Cases like these are the reason why the AGPL exists Exactly. Not sure why they Ghost doesn't use AGPL. Still, it would have been kind of fair from Substack to approach this more open and collaboratively...

freedomben 4y ago
Because AGPL probably would have made it a no-go for substack to use. They seem to genuinely want to collaborate: https://twitter.com/JohnONolan/status/1602330416643702784 https://twitter.com/JohnONolan/status/1602330416643702784
- shafyy 4y ago
  Why would AGPL have made it a no-go for Substack? Also, it looks like Ghost wants to collab but there's nothing from Substack in the Twitter thread you linekd?
  - ushakov 4y ago
    > Ghost wants to collab but there's nothing from Substack Substack doesn't have to "collaborate" do they?
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    Because AGPL infects their entire service. You'll be hard pressed to find any commercial service adopting AGPL projects. Even the GPLv3 is often immiscible with commercial services. At least GPLv3 can be contained to only part of your stack.
  - wil93 4y ago
    IANAL but I think integrating AGPL code would affect the license of the rest of the codebase too: Substack would be forced to release the rest of their codebase as AGPL too. This is why AGPL is considered a "viral" license.
none_to_remain 4y ago
If I use some MIT licensed dependency to power a service at work, I don't beg permission from the maintainers first
miroljub 4y ago
While agree that it would be nice from the Substack to give credit to Ghost, they are not required to do. It's unfair to complain about Substack doing exactly what they are explicitly allowed to do by the company that released Ghost under that specific licence that they choose to.
- shafyy 4y ago
  Yes I agree it's unfair to complain, and I don't think Ghost is complaining (at least I don't see complaints from what John tweeted). It's more about "giving credit where credit's due" I think...

by shafyy 4y ago

freedomben 4y ago

Because AGPL probably would have made it a no-go for substack to use. They seem to genuinely want to collaborate: https://twitter.com/JohnONolan/status/1602330416643702784 https://twitter.com/JohnONolan/status/1602330416643702784

shafyy 4y ago
Why would AGPL have made it a no-go for Substack? Also, it looks like Ghost wants to collab but there's nothing from Substack in the Twitter thread you linekd?
- ushakov 4y ago
  > Ghost wants to collab but there's nothing from Substack Substack doesn't have to "collaborate" do they?
- giantrobot 4y ago
  Because AGPL infects their entire service. You'll be hard pressed to find any commercial service adopting AGPL projects. Even the GPLv3 is often immiscible with commercial services. At least GPLv3 can be contained to only part of your stack.
- wil93 4y ago
  IANAL but I think integrating AGPL code would affect the license of the rest of the codebase too: Substack would be forced to release the rest of their codebase as AGPL too. This is why AGPL is considered a "viral" license.

none_to_remain 4y ago

If I use some MIT licensed dependency to power a service at work, I don't beg permission from the maintainers first

miroljub 4y ago

While agree that it would be nice from the Substack to give credit to Ghost, they are not required to do. It's unfair to complain about Substack doing exactly what they are explicitly allowed to do by the company that released Ghost under that specific licence that they choose to.

shafyy 4y ago
Yes I agree it's unfair to complain, and I don't think Ghost is complaining (at least I don't see complaints from what John tweeted). It's more about "giving credit where credit's due" I think...