3 ms·

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.

by tpxl 4y ago

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.
        tm-guimaraes 4y ago
        It's about know what code runs in devices they are _using_. The user doesn't own your server but he is using it through the client. AGPL is meant to apply the 4 freedoms to anything that is _used_.
    - bombolo 4y ago
      This conversation would have great benefit if you actually went to read the text of the AGPL license. By default you are entitled to run only code that you wrote yourself. You need the copyright holders of anything else to grant you the right to run their code. Microsoft usually grants the right behind payment. AGPL authors grant you the right on the condition that you share your changes (if you do any changes) with your users. If you choose to disobey the terms, two things can happen: 1. Nobody notices and nothing happens. 2. You can be taken to court. > but it should not be considered a free license Why not? Which of the 4 freedoms is it taking away?
- 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.

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.

by 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.
      - tm-guimaraes 4y ago
        It's about know what code runs in devices they are _using_. The user doesn't own your server but he is using it through the client. AGPL is meant to apply the 4 freedoms to anything that is _used_.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    This conversation would have great benefit if you actually went to read the text of the AGPL license. By default you are entitled to run only code that you wrote yourself. You need the copyright holders of anything else to grant you the right to run their code. Microsoft usually grants the right behind payment. AGPL authors grant you the right on the condition that you share your changes (if you do any changes) with your users. If you choose to disobey the terms, two things can happen: 1. Nobody notices and nothing happens. 2. You can be taken to court. > but it should not be considered a free license Why not? Which of the 4 freedoms is it taking away?
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.