5 ms·
It's not just big tech that hates AGPL. If Terraform was under AGPL a lot of companies might have to release their source code as AGPL too because of its virali
by Znafon 3y ago
It's not just big tech that hates AGPL. If Terraform was under AGPL a lot of companies might have to release their source code as AGPL too because of its virality. Where it stops is not exactly clear from the license.
- jen20 3y agoWhere AGPL stops is actually very well defined.
- Znafon 3y agoThe AGPL defines "Corresponding Source" as "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities". Then in section 13 it says that "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". Isn't "scripts to control those activities quite vague? Under those terms wouldn't AWS Proton, IBM Schematics, Env0, Digger, Spacelift, etc. be required to open-source a very large part of their product as well?
- galenmarchetti 3y agoI think, if Terraform was licensed under AGPL, then not only would all of those folks would have to also open-source their products, but also that would be the intent of the license in the first place
- eduction 3y agoNot really. The lawyer Kyle Mitchell said of the agpl,“Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke.” Even lawyers have trouble understanding when its provisions are triggered. https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL Use OSL3!
- chc 3y agoAGPL is almost exactly the same as GPL except that SAAS counts as distribution. That's the entire purpose of the license — to preserve the copyleft protections of the GPL in a world where most software people use is hosted.
- galenmarchetti 3y agoLove this framing of the license...as Stallman said, who does that server really serve? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
- ninkendo 3y agoExcept it’s not just hosting the covered work itself as SAAS that triggers a distribution, but any derived work. If you use (say) AGPL MongoDB in your SAAS bug tracker, your bug tracker now needs to be AGPL too. The virality doesn’t stop at hosting a SAAS MongoDB.
- candiddevmike 3y agoThat's probably not correct. While the AGPL is a little ambiguous, it probably does not infect other apps. That's why I created the Candid Public License (CPL): https://github.com/candiddev/cpl https://github.com/candiddev/cpl
- ninkendo 3y agoEvery lawyer I’ve talked to takes my interpretation. It may be overly cautious of them, but in practice, if something becomes the prevailing legal view, it de facto is the correct interpretation, at least until it is tested in court.
- candiddevmike 3y agoI would find new lawyers, the AGPL is just the GPL with the addition that network access counts as distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agpl-license/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agp...
- imtringued 3y agoThere is no such thing as "virality". It doesn't exist. The worst thing you can do is violate the license terms and not be allowed to use the software that is AGPL licensed.
- taway1237 3y agoAnd yet everyone understands what this term means when applied to software licensing. Pretty good argument that this word, in fact, exists and has a well defined meaning.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]