4 ms·

The AGPL is a stupid licence. If you use anything over a network you are using someone else's computer. Of course the code that runs on your end should be open

The AGPL is a stupid licence. If you use anything over a network you are using someone else's computer. Of course the code that runs on your end should be open source, but having the server's source code is useless since you cannot verify they are truly running what they claim they do.

bayindirh 4y ago
These licenses are legal documents and binding.
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  Do you have a right over someone else's computer? Maybe we are talking about government servers and you could argue they are public property so AGPL could be needed, but private companies?
  - tpxl 4y ago
    Wat. You don't have a right to run _my_ code on your server. If you won't abide by the license terms, you can't run my code.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      The GPL tells me I have the freedom to run your code however I please, and I should release my modifications only if they run on someone else's computer and they request the source code. Since the code only runs on my server then no user has the right to request the source code. This is why AGPL is a dangerous extension to the GPL
      - bombolo 4y ago
        It's not an "extension". It's a different license that doesn't give you the right to run the code on your server, unless you share the sources with the users. You are free to implement it yourself instead of using someone else's AGPL code.
      - kahnclusions 4y ago
        How is that dangerous? You have the freedom to run or change the code however you like, but if you use the software to provide service to users over a network, then you must share any modifications you make to that software. In other words, whether you let me download and run the software locally, or you let me run the software remotely on your server, you always need to provide the source code. Don’t like these conditions? Then don’t run the software. No one is forcing you to run it.
        AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        "Remote running" is not a thing. It's my server, you are not running anything except the client application. Every single bit of code is running on my computer and you are not entitled to know more other than the API you are using to talk to it. The AGPL is dangerous because it redefines the meaning of "running" a program by extending it beyond your own devices. Of course the AGPL can have its uses as I already explained, but it should not be considered a free license
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Well, don't license the code you write with AGPL, then, or don't use code licensed by AGPL. Clearly there are people who don't share the same viewpoint with you, and use AGPL license. Like Nextcloud, for example.
        AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on their devices? Absolutely. Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on devices they don't own? Absolutely not.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Well, if I'm trusting my data with some service, I'd rather know the code handling my data. There's nothing inherently wrong about telling people "Hey, this is the code handling your data, come see for yourself". And, this is a huge win, and show of confidence, if you ask me.
      - Shish2k 4y ago
        Yes, the GPL and the AGPL are two different licenses, that’s… the point. “The AGPL includes additional [requirements for businesses / freedoms for end-users] which are not included in the GPL” is a feature, not a bug. If as a software author you want companies to sell access to your software, but without sharing the source code, use GPL. If as a software author you want companies to sell access to your software with sharing the source code, use the AGPL. If you’re running a company whose business model is “sell access to open-source software”, then it’s up to you if you want to build your business on top of GPL or AGPL software, and if you don’t like that license, you don’t use that software.
      - pabs3 4y ago
        The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project. In the AGPL case, that would be only users that you let have network access to the modified AGPL software. This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me.
        afiori 4y ago
        > if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. As with the GPL it should be noted that by default linking to [A]GPL code (e.g. by installing it with a package manager) constitute a modification. So unless the [A]GPL code includes a linking exception your code must be [A]GPL if there is anything [A]GPL in you node_modules folder.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    If you don't agree to the license, you have the choice to not to install and use the software (installation and usage implies acceptance). And you are obliged to share the changes you made to the source code publicly. You can share the way you choose, but you have to do it.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      No, no. Legally, you would be obliged to do this if someone ever made an issue out of it and they actually won a case against you. Otherwise you’d be fine not distributing it at all (besides some occasional internet outrage).
      - HowTheStoryEnds 4y ago
        That would be acting in bad faith.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project. In the AGPL case, that would be only users that you let have network access to the modified AGPL software.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        > The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. Well, you're running the upstream software in that case, so you don't have to share anything, which is logical. > The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users... Well, if you're distributing the software to downstream users via network, you need to share the source code via network. It's also logical and straightforward. You can't tell that it's GPLv3 and binaries are here, but I won't give you the source. You have to. If we were in 80s, I'd happily mail you a check and envelope to mail my floppies. One optional set for binaries, and one set for the source. In both cases the practicality is the same.

bayindirh 4y ago

These licenses are legal documents and binding.

AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Do you have a right over someone else's computer? Maybe we are talking about government servers and you could argue they are public property so AGPL could be needed, but private companies?
- tpxl 4y ago
  Wat. You don't have a right to run _my_ code on your server. If you won't abide by the license terms, you can't run my code.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    The GPL tells me I have the freedom to run your code however I please, and I should release my modifications only if they run on someone else's computer and they request the source code. Since the code only runs on my server then no user has the right to request the source code. This is why AGPL is a dangerous extension to the GPL
    - bombolo 4y ago
      It's not an "extension". It's a different license that doesn't give you the right to run the code on your server, unless you share the sources with the users. You are free to implement it yourself instead of using someone else's AGPL code.
    - kahnclusions 4y ago
      How is that dangerous? You have the freedom to run or change the code however you like, but if you use the software to provide service to users over a network, then you must share any modifications you make to that software. In other words, whether you let me download and run the software locally, or you let me run the software remotely on your server, you always need to provide the source code. Don’t like these conditions? Then don’t run the software. No one is forcing you to run it.
      - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        "Remote running" is not a thing. It's my server, you are not running anything except the client application. Every single bit of code is running on my computer and you are not entitled to know more other than the API you are using to talk to it. The AGPL is dangerous because it redefines the meaning of "running" a program by extending it beyond your own devices. Of course the AGPL can have its uses as I already explained, but it should not be considered a free license
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Well, don't license the code you write with AGPL, then, or don't use code licensed by AGPL. Clearly there are people who don't share the same viewpoint with you, and use AGPL license. Like Nextcloud, for example.
        AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on their devices? Absolutely. Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on devices they don't own? Absolutely not.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Well, if I'm trusting my data with some service, I'd rather know the code handling my data. There's nothing inherently wrong about telling people "Hey, this is the code handling your data, come see for yourself". And, this is a huge win, and show of confidence, if you ask me.
    - Shish2k 4y ago
      Yes, the GPL and the AGPL are two different licenses, that’s… the point. “The AGPL includes additional [requirements for businesses / freedoms for end-users] which are not included in the GPL” is a feature, not a bug. If as a software author you want companies to sell access to your software, but without sharing the source code, use GPL. If as a software author you want companies to sell access to your software with sharing the source code, use the AGPL. If you’re running a company whose business model is “sell access to open-source software”, then it’s up to you if you want to build your business on top of GPL or AGPL software, and if you don’t like that license, you don’t use that software.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project. In the AGPL case, that would be only users that you let have network access to the modified AGPL software. This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me.
      - afiori 4y ago
        > if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. As with the GPL it should be noted that by default linking to [A]GPL code (e.g. by installing it with a package manager) constitute a modification. So unless the [A]GPL code includes a linking exception your code must be [A]GPL if there is anything [A]GPL in you node_modules folder.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  If you don't agree to the license, you have the choice to not to install and use the software (installation and usage implies acceptance). And you are obliged to share the changes you made to the source code publicly. You can share the way you choose, but you have to do it.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    No, no. Legally, you would be obliged to do this if someone ever made an issue out of it and they actually won a case against you. Otherwise you’d be fine not distributing it at all (besides some occasional internet outrage).
    - HowTheStoryEnds 4y ago
      That would be acting in bad faith.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project. In the AGPL case, that would be only users that you let have network access to the modified AGPL software.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      > The AGPLv3 network clause is triggered on modification, so if you don't modify the code, you don't have to redistribute the source code. Well, you're running the upstream software in that case, so you don't have to share anything, which is logical. > The copyleft licenses don't require to share the source code publicly, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users... Well, if you're distributing the software to downstream users via network, you need to share the source code via network. It's also logical and straightforward. You can't tell that it's GPLv3 and binaries are here, but I won't give you the source. You have to. If we were in 80s, I'd happily mail you a check and envelope to mail my floppies. One optional set for binaries, and one set for the source. In both cases the practicality is the same.