6 ms·

Interesting. The "why" section answered my questions - it appears to be an even stronger copyleft than the agpl

prepend 3y ago
I don’t think so. It seems like the agpl covers everything this does as I don’t think agpl cares about interactive vs non-interactive. That being said, I hope people choose to use this new license.
- tzs 3y ago
  The difference between GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is: 1. The name. 2. Section 13's title is changed from "Use with the GNU Affero General Public License" to "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License" and this is inserted before its first paragraph: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. 3. Some more is added about how the two licenses work with each other. The whole point of AGPL is to deal with users interactive with the program (but only remotely over computer networks...if they are interacting remotely with it but not via a computer network or if they are interacting locally then AGPL is effectively GPL).
  - whartung 3y ago
    Consider this example: You download a FOPL version of something like cron. You make some changes to this code and run it on your internal servers to schedule some business process. Even though this software, not even the server, even catches a whiff of the internet, since the software has been “Deployed” for a commercial use case, the company is obliged to make the changes to the code publicly available. Simply, this license expands the distribution concept to commercial use, whether anyone else ever encounters it or not.
RobotToaster 3y ago
Seems like a weird mix of A and L GPL? "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software." Seems to imply you can use a library distributed under this licence and not release the entire program source?
- phkahler 3y ago
  Looks like a big gaping hole of ambiguity to me. A vague attempt at license compatibility. You don't get to impose terms on code under another license, and WTF does "the requirements of this license are fulfilled" without saying the result must be covered by this license? It's nonsense. There is no room here for "you know what I mean" because at best I think I know what they wish could be, but even if I'm right the details are absent.
josephcsible 3y ago
> an even stronger copyleft than the agpl Which is a red flag. The AGPL was basically designed to be the strongest possible copyleft FOSS license. When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source (e.g., the SSPL), and that's exactly what ended up happening here.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" The FSF's stewardship of copyleft has led us to the current status quo, where the GPLv2 is still incredibly common compared to v3, the AGPL is considered niche, and it seems most developers these days prefer permissive licenses anyway. These kinds of new licenses are exactly the breath of fresh air we need. If the existing free software/open source dogma says they're bad, maybe it's the dogma that's wrong.

I don’t think so. It seems like the agpl covers everything this does as I don’t think agpl cares about interactive vs non-interactive. That being said, I hope people choose to use this new license.

tzs 3y ago
The difference between GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is: 1. The name. 2. Section 13's title is changed from "Use with the GNU Affero General Public License" to "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License" and this is inserted before its first paragraph: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. 3. Some more is added about how the two licenses work with each other. The whole point of AGPL is to deal with users interactive with the program (but only remotely over computer networks...if they are interacting remotely with it but not via a computer network or if they are interacting locally then AGPL is effectively GPL).
- whartung 3y ago
  Consider this example: You download a FOPL version of something like cron. You make some changes to this code and run it on your internal servers to schedule some business process. Even though this software, not even the server, even catches a whiff of the internet, since the software has been “Deployed” for a commercial use case, the company is obliged to make the changes to the code publicly available. Simply, this license expands the distribution concept to commercial use, whether anyone else ever encounters it or not.

RobotToaster 3y ago

Seems like a weird mix of A and L GPL? "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software." Seems to imply you can use a library distributed under this licence and not release the entire program source?

phkahler 3y ago
Looks like a big gaping hole of ambiguity to me. A vague attempt at license compatibility. You don't get to impose terms on code under another license, and WTF does "the requirements of this license are fulfilled" without saying the result must be covered by this license? It's nonsense. There is no room here for "you know what I mean" because at best I think I know what they wish could be, but even if I'm right the details are absent.

josephcsible 3y ago

> an even stronger copyleft than the agpl Which is a red flag. The AGPL was basically designed to be the strongest possible copyleft FOSS license. When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source (e.g., the SSPL), and that's exactly what ended up happening here.

LexiMax 3y ago
> When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" The FSF's stewardship of copyleft has led us to the current status quo, where the GPLv2 is still incredibly common compared to v3, the AGPL is considered niche, and it seems most developers these days prefer permissive licenses anyway. These kinds of new licenses are exactly the breath of fresh air we need. If the existing free software/open source dogma says they're bad, maybe it's the dogma that's wrong.