14 ms·

I think that is the point. This license hasn't been battle tested in a court room that much. And until it is, we can't really know what is and isn't enforceable

I think that is the point. This license hasn't been battle tested in a court room that much. And until it is, we can't really know what is and isn't enforceable. People supposing it should be interpreted this way or that way, mostly aren't lawyers. So, that means there's a good chance they are wrong. But more importantly, how important is it for you to be right/wrong about your own interpretation? Of course a bit academic for most developers. But for most companies that don't like uncertainty around the topic of who actually owns their core intellectual property, this is a good reason to blanket ban the use of anything AGPL licensed. Personally, I avoid the anything AGPL licensed for a different reason. I write software for a living and with the goal to profit from that directly or indirectly. People using AGPL seem to be signalling that they don't appreciate other people using their software for profit. So, I respect that and ignore their work. Plenty of more liberally licensed software out there where the developers seem to actively encourage people to use their software. I like feeling welcome as a user. And I don't feel welcome using AGPL software. So, I don't.

madeofpalk 3y ago
> This license hasn't been battle tested in a court room that much. This is kind of considered a feature, isn't it? Every time a disagreement is taken to court, it's a failure of all sides. Courts are expensive and a time waste, so we create contracts that avoid all of that to try to get parties to work together without the courts. AGPL has been enforceable, in general, because of all the case law around general copyright law.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  Depends if you want a license you can rely on on both sides with zero ambiguity on what is and isn't enforcable, having a few court cases confirm this is nice. The lack of court cases has a perfectly reasonable explanation: no serious company with a legal department would bother to touch anything licensed this way. The companies most likely to be able to represent themselves in a court are also the most likely to have a policy of just blanket banning anything with this license. As a means of alienating end users, the AGPL is an enormous success. As a means of actually enforcing what it says, it's largely unproven.
webmobdev 3y ago
> People using AGPL seem to be signalling that they don't appreciate other people using their software for profit. No. We use xGPL to protect our (developers) and users "right to repair". xGPL developers don't care if you are selling and making a profit from the software they created (and you maybe enhanced). What they want is that you do so by also ensuring that every user of your software also has access to the source code so that any developmental knowledge is not lost or the software doesn't become abandonware when it is no longer profitable to sell it.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensing company allowing them to relicense the software with a commercial license. In this case, I don't see it protecting users' rights, but rather as a means to monetize the software.
  - webmobdev 3y ago
    Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.

madeofpalk 3y ago

> This license hasn't been battle tested in a court room that much. This is kind of considered a feature, isn't it? Every time a disagreement is taken to court, it's a failure of all sides. Courts are expensive and a time waste, so we create contracts that avoid all of that to try to get parties to work together without the courts. AGPL has been enforceable, in general, because of all the case law around general copyright law.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Depends if you want a license you can rely on on both sides with zero ambiguity on what is and isn't enforcable, having a few court cases confirm this is nice. The lack of court cases has a perfectly reasonable explanation: no serious company with a legal department would bother to touch anything licensed this way. The companies most likely to be able to represent themselves in a court are also the most likely to have a policy of just blanket banning anything with this license. As a means of alienating end users, the AGPL is an enormous success. As a means of actually enforcing what it says, it's largely unproven.

webmobdev 3y ago

> People using AGPL seem to be signalling that they don't appreciate other people using their software for profit. No. We use xGPL to protect our (developers) and users "right to repair". xGPL developers don't care if you are selling and making a profit from the software they created (and you maybe enhanced). What they want is that you do so by also ensuring that every user of your software also has access to the source code so that any developmental knowledge is not lost or the software doesn't become abandonware when it is no longer profitable to sell it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensing company allowing them to relicense the software with a commercial license. In this case, I don't see it protecting users' rights, but rather as a means to monetize the software.
- webmobdev 3y ago
  Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.