8 ms·
There is some confusion here. The linked GitHub repo clearly says Apache License, but their commercial website does say AGPL. They're not even remotely similar
by _atreeonmyhouse 3y ago
There is some confusion here.
The linked GitHub repo clearly says Apache License, but their commercial website does say AGPL. They're not even remotely similar.
The AGPL is regarded as so toxic that nearly all companies where office suites matter, place it on a "do not use" list. It's a good way to artificially limit your potential customers. It doesn't matter that they have a page saying "sure go ahead and use it internally" - most places won't touch it with a 10m pole, by policy.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoThe document server is Apache, but the editors and visual components are AGPL.
- kstrauser 3y agoThat’s so sad. I’d hate to work at a shop that wouldn’t allow AGPL’d software for internal tooling. What a completely legally unnecessary, productivity-hobbling decision. Perhaps the best feature of the AGPL is that it predominately hampers companies with ineffective legal departments.
- _atreeonmyhouse 3y agoOne of the most notable examples is Google.
- kstrauser 3y agoPity. They said it’s because they’re afraid someone outside Google would use it, which is legitimate for companies without sufficient technical SBOL controls to prevent using third party software in violation of its terms. Their take is basically “we don’t have a way to keep our internal software internal, so you can’t use it at all, ever, for anything”. I wouldn’t have expected that of them.
- hedora 3y agoThat makes sense. GPL 3 is basically a non-starter for people that ship hardware, but is fine for people that provide web services. AGPL would level the playing field between Google and device manufacturers and on-prem software companies (like Apple and Microsoft). Of course they don’t want their employees to use and indirectly support that ecosystem! I wish they’d produce a GPL 4 that is closer to the AGPL. v3 backfired and is severely hurting end-users’ freedom in practice.
- GuB-42 3y agoI know, but why? Due to their size, they must have one of the best legal department in the world. Also, their core business is search, and data processing in general. They have the means of using such software and doing what it takes to comply with the licence without putting themselves in trouble. My guess is simply that they don't want to. They prefer to rewrite it, which will allow them to monetize their tools as proprietary software later. They are already overstaffed with some of the best developers, they can rewrite stuff, and they don't really need help from the open source community, that's why they don't release under copyleft themselves.
- DangitBobby 3y agoLicenses intended to be viral and poisonous are avoided by companies interested in ownership over their own IP. Huge shocker.
- josephcsible 3y agoWhat do you mean by "poisonous"?
- fungiblecog 3y agoIt's just a classic F.U.D (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tactic
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DangitBobby 3y agoThey are intentionally dangerous to unwitting license holders who wield them wrong.
- nine_k 3y agoI suppose it's about the patent clause.
- komali2 3y ago> viral and poisonous Viral, perhaps if you integrate a library, but in this case it doesn't make sense, you only need to distribute source code if you modify it. Poisonous makes no sense to me, can you clarify? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous 1. DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL ... 3. SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS In what ways is the GPL or AGPL destructive or harmful or spiteful or malicious? I find it the exact opposite of all those concepts.
- kstrauser 3y agoIt’s not, except to people who want to use GPLed software without holding up their end of the bargain.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agoTotally bollocks. This is pure fud. Nothing else. AGPL DOES NOT restrict ability to be used internally. Agpl does NOT restrict selling software as it is. Agpl does not restrict using agpl software with proprietary software. Only thing that agpl prevent is, IF YOU MODIFY AGPL SOFTWARE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOURCE CODE TO USERS. Your modifications. Thats it. AGPL DOES NOT MANDATE upstreaming modifications. You can do it or you cannot. Your choice. Others can choose to upstream or fork or Downstream your modifications What you are confusing with is the fud google spreads about agpl. They dont touch it because if they modify code they have to release it but they don't for reasons known to them. Again, AGPL is NOT viral like SSPL which is like AGPL but on steroids.
- dang 3y agoPlease make your substantive points without fulminating or calling names. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. In addition, it's in your own interest because it will make your argument much more persuasive. Edit: we've had to ask you this at least once before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32387908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32387908. Can you please stick to the rules when posting here? We have to ban accounts that won't, and I don't want to ban you.
- bo1024 3y agoAnd the weirdest part about the complaint is that this is an application your employees could run on their computers to write documents. It's not like the discussion is about a library or package to be included in the product you're shipping.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agoYeah. I challenge people here to break my claims down point by point from agpl license. I could be wrong but let's see how wrong I really am.
- blackoil 3y agoWith large companies with 100s of partners and contractors what is internal is fluid particularly over the network. So am sure they don't want to use such as a library. Though I am not lawyer/license expert so that fact may be irrelevant more so using it as desktop app. But perception matters, if Goog/MSFT are not using it, a startup also won't risk using them lest some auditor flags it in next round of funding particularly if alternative is few dollars a month.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> The AGPL is regarded as so toxic that nearly all companies where office suites matter, place it on a "do not use" list. It's a good way to artificially limit your potential customers. Then it's no worse than any proprietary software; if they pay for a commercial license then it's fine. Of course, if they use it internally then AGPL is also fine.
- circuit10 3y agoI think that’s why they have a commercial offering
- dingi 3y ago[flagged]