3 ms·

AGPL does not get triggered by distributing mold produced binaries or using mold. It gets triggered by using it as a service for someone else, for example autom

AGPL does not get triggered by distributing mold produced binaries or using mold. It gets triggered by using it as a service for someone else, for example automated code compilation for someone else. From the README.md: mold is available under AGPL. Note that that does not mean that you have to license your program under AGPL if you use mold to link your program. An output of the mold linker is a derived work of the object files and libraries you pass to the linker but not a derived work of the mold linker itself. In the same way, the sold linker is not legal to use except within its license, but this has no bearing on the binaries produced, as those are not derived work of the sold linker. The binaries produced are unrestricted, only using the sold linker in the first place is the issue. If it were a derived work, like maybe mold produces a binary that yanks some mold code, the story would be different: https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditio...

saghm 4y ago
I tried to cover this in my second paragraph, but I'll give it another shot; whether it's legal or not to use internally doesn't really change the political reality that trying to use this internally at most big companies will be an uphill battle that most people aren't going to fight. From a pragmatic perspective, perspective matters even if it's irrational; if anything, the fact that someone holds a perspective that's irrational is even _more_ of an argument that cold reason might not be effective at changing their behavior. This is a thing I've struggled with a lot in various circumstances, and I think it's not an uncommon hurdle for a lot of us in the tech community, but ultimately you have to decide whether you care more about how you make your case or if you care more about whether it succeeds. It's a totally defensible position to take that you shouldn't have to cater to people who have irrational fears about your product and that they should be willing to try it out based on the fact that the risk they worry about isn't real, but if what you really want is to be able to sell the product and have people use it, you won't be happy at the end of the day if that strategy doesn't work. I might be entirely incorrect about what the goals of the author of mold are, but based on what I've read, it sounds like this is basically the situation they're in now. If I'm incorrect, and they're genuinely happier sticking to their strategy even if it costs them the ability to sell the product, then my advice doesn't apply and they can and should ignore it. If they aren't happier this way though, I hope that they either consider a different strategy or that I'm completely wrong about what's stopped it from succeeding so far, because I just don't see the situation changing if there isn't a shift in how it's marketed.

saghm 4y ago

I tried to cover this in my second paragraph, but I'll give it another shot; whether it's legal or not to use internally doesn't really change the political reality that trying to use this internally at most big companies will be an uphill battle that most people aren't going to fight. From a pragmatic perspective, perspective matters even if it's irrational; if anything, the fact that someone holds a perspective that's irrational is even _more_ of an argument that cold reason might not be effective at changing their behavior. This is a thing I've struggled with a lot in various circumstances, and I think it's not an uncommon hurdle for a lot of us in the tech community, but ultimately you have to decide whether you care more about how you make your case or if you care more about whether it succeeds. It's a totally defensible position to take that you shouldn't have to cater to people who have irrational fears about your product and that they should be willing to try it out based on the fact that the risk they worry about isn't real, but if what you really want is to be able to sell the product and have people use it, you won't be happy at the end of the day if that strategy doesn't work. I might be entirely incorrect about what the goals of the author of mold are, but based on what I've read, it sounds like this is basically the situation they're in now. If I'm incorrect, and they're genuinely happier sticking to their strategy even if it costs them the ability to sell the product, then my advice doesn't apply and they can and should ignore it. If they aren't happier this way though, I hope that they either consider a different strategy or that I'm completely wrong about what's stopped it from succeeding so far, because I just don't see the situation changing if there isn't a shift in how it's marketed.