4 ms·

I don't have to intend to sell it in order to want to restrict others from doing so, though. Even if I want to allow others to sell the product or something whi

I don't have to intend to sell it in order to want to restrict others from doing so, though. Even if I want to allow others to sell the product or something which contains it, I can want to restrict them to certain usecases. (see "no more than 700M MAU" in LLaMa) AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. Huggingface is entirely in the right here - there is zero reason for them to effectively subsidise their competitors who will obviously not contribute back in any meaningful way, but at the same time, want to publish the source, either for altruistic reasons or for publicity reasons.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. "SaaS loophole" is the GPL. AGPL is the thing that closes it.
- thrown1212 3y ago
  No it doesn’t. Anyone can take AGPL code and wrap it up as a SaaS. AGPL forces you to publish changes even as a SaaS which GPL does not. But that doesn’t close the AWS problem that Elastic and others faced.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The "loophole" is that you can modify and use the software without contributing back your changes. This has bad economics because then someone can take the work you've done, add 10% more effort to make it 10% better, and outcompete anyone else because their thing is 10% better than the free thing even though the original authors did 90% of the work and are still carrying most of the maintenance burden. People using free software for free is not a loophole.