4 ms·

Hacker news is a mix of venture capital and technologists, the AGPL3 is a wedge between those two groups needs and objectives.

dilyevsky 3y ago
For agpl specifically I believe it’s due to muddy waters surrounding the “derivative work” clause. Some companies have traditionally bent the definition (eg insinuating that api calls result in larger application fall under combined work) and it’s never been tested in court so understandably the lawyers do the lawyer thing and tell you not to use it
- spaceribs 3y ago
  Yeah, but even stepping back there, lawyers are paid to prevent companies from entering those muddy waters as a risk to their profits. Profit isn't a concern to someone who wishes to publish open source software, in fact you could say Open Source is an inherently socialist venture (your socializing the tools/means to do something). The AGPL3 makes it more difficult for others with probably more means to profit on that work, so it's a net benefit to the folks who actually write code (and a detriment to those who would wish to exploit it).
  - dilyevsky 3y ago
    Right so as long as food and shelter is not a concern AGPL is v good license!
    - spaceribs 3y ago
      Yep! I'd say 95% of open source is subsidized by those thriving rather than surviving, having the education/equipment/access/free-time to deliver open source software is a product of privilege and abundance.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Not only some companies - API calls being linking also seems to be the opinion of the FSF.
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    I mean I always though of AGPL as network-aware GPL so that makes sense to me. IANAL
  - blagund 3y ago
    I recall someone pointing out, AGPL only affects offering the same core functionality over network. So you cant monetize exposing as is. But you can use as a backend component. Lot of people miss that. I did too. IANAL.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      That's the ambiguity I mentioned. Nobody actually knows. MinIO for instance thinks you're wrong.
      - merb 3y ago
        garage a competitor with a rust code based think thats legal.
_cenw 3y ago
The AGPL revels in legal uncertainty and UX destroying demands (see FSFs "an agpl reverse proxy must first serve a notice it's AGPL before proxying onward"). I find the EUPL is a much better replacement for what a lot of people expect the AGPL to be, with the added benefit of being compatible with a bunch of other licenses by yielding when specific clauses intersect.
- spaceribs 3y ago
  While I agree that it's legally murky in some respects, that seems like an opportunity (and a benefit to the writer of the OSS code) for a dialog between the maintainer and the user of AGPL code to ensure compliance. Why would you want to open a bunch of loopholes for very specific and complex cases?
  - _cenw 3y ago
    EUPL compatibility is not exactly "opening a bunch of loopholes". It's yielding to a very specific list of licenses, to very specific conditions that exclusively make the resulting license more strict (e.g. combining with AGPL basically turns it into an AGPL licensed work)
    - spaceribs 3y ago
      Ah, I'll admit I know a lot less about the EUPL, I'll do some further reading on the subject.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > see FSFs "an agpl reverse proxy must first serve a notice it's AGPL before proxying onward" Can you link to that requirement?
  - _cenw 3y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLProxy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLProxy

dilyevsky 3y ago

For agpl specifically I believe it’s due to muddy waters surrounding the “derivative work” clause. Some companies have traditionally bent the definition (eg insinuating that api calls result in larger application fall under combined work) and it’s never been tested in court so understandably the lawyers do the lawyer thing and tell you not to use it

spaceribs 3y ago
Yeah, but even stepping back there, lawyers are paid to prevent companies from entering those muddy waters as a risk to their profits. Profit isn't a concern to someone who wishes to publish open source software, in fact you could say Open Source is an inherently socialist venture (your socializing the tools/means to do something). The AGPL3 makes it more difficult for others with probably more means to profit on that work, so it's a net benefit to the folks who actually write code (and a detriment to those who would wish to exploit it).
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  Right so as long as food and shelter is not a concern AGPL is v good license!
  - spaceribs 3y ago
    Yep! I'd say 95% of open source is subsidized by those thriving rather than surviving, having the education/equipment/access/free-time to deliver open source software is a product of privilege and abundance.
_cenw 3y ago
Not only some companies - API calls being linking also seems to be the opinion of the FSF.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I mean I always though of AGPL as network-aware GPL so that makes sense to me. IANAL
- blagund 3y ago
  I recall someone pointing out, AGPL only affects offering the same core functionality over network. So you cant monetize exposing as is. But you can use as a backend component. Lot of people miss that. I did too. IANAL.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    That's the ambiguity I mentioned. Nobody actually knows. MinIO for instance thinks you're wrong.
    - merb 3y ago
      garage a competitor with a rust code based think thats legal.

_cenw 3y ago

The AGPL revels in legal uncertainty and UX destroying demands (see FSFs "an agpl reverse proxy must first serve a notice it's AGPL before proxying onward"). I find the EUPL is a much better replacement for what a lot of people expect the AGPL to be, with the added benefit of being compatible with a bunch of other licenses by yielding when specific clauses intersect.

spaceribs 3y ago
While I agree that it's legally murky in some respects, that seems like an opportunity (and a benefit to the writer of the OSS code) for a dialog between the maintainer and the user of AGPL code to ensure compliance. Why would you want to open a bunch of loopholes for very specific and complex cases?
- _cenw 3y ago
  EUPL compatibility is not exactly "opening a bunch of loopholes". It's yielding to a very specific list of licenses, to very specific conditions that exclusively make the resulting license more strict (e.g. combining with AGPL basically turns it into an AGPL licensed work)
  - spaceribs 3y ago
    Ah, I'll admit I know a lot less about the EUPL, I'll do some further reading on the subject.
josephcsible 3y ago
> see FSFs "an agpl reverse proxy must first serve a notice it's AGPL before proxying onward" Can you link to that requirement?
- _cenw 3y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLProxy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLProxy