3 ms·

That's not really true. Users need to share their modifications ONLY IF they distribute copies of the modified work, and ONLY TO those whom they distributed mod

by davisr 3y ago

That's not really true. Users need to share their modifications ONLY IF they distribute copies of the modified work, and ONLY TO those whom they distributed modified works to. And this is the whole point: that everyone shares in the wealth of free software. And if someone makes a program better, those modifications can be reincorporated into the original work, making it more valuable. Free software is about computer USER freedom, not DEVELOPER freedom. As a user of software, I want that freedom, and won't settle for anything less. That's why I write free software, because it's the software I want to use.

kube-system 3y ago
The AGPL also requires distribution of the modified work if used over a network, even if copies are not distributed. This is the entire reason AGPL was created, because GPL did not do this. > Free software is about computer USER freedom, not DEVELOPER freedom. What are non-developers going to do with source code? Back when FOSS was first conceptualized, all users were developers. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the issue, the fact of the matter is that AGPL quite specifically don't let people do "anything" with it. The software comes with obligations. That is the entire point of copyleft. Sure, you might think the obligations are good -- that doesn't mean they don't exist.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  > What are non-developers going to do with source code? What do you do when your car is missing a feature that you want? You bring it to a mechanic, and you pay them to add the functionality you want. The GPL means freedom. And telling someone they need to respect the freedoms that you grant them is not restricting their freedom. It costs nothing to share your source code, and it should be the default state of software development. It's like the silliness around the tolerance paradox. An action that creates more freedom in the world can never be seen as "less free" than one that doesn't.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > And telling someone they need to respect the freedoms that you grant them is not restricting their freedom. It costs nothing to share your source code, and it should be the default state of software development. I agree with this. However, I don't personally believe AGPL does this as equitably as some other licenses.
tzs 3y ago
> That's not really true. Users need to share their modifications ONLY IF they distribute copies of the modified work, and ONLY TO those whom they distributed modified works to. Except for AGPL, which can require sharing your modifications even if you are not distributing copies of the modified work. Indeed, that was the whole point of AGPL.
- pritambaral 3y ago
  EDIT: I misread "distribute" as "provide access to".
  - kube-system 3y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html > It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server.

by davisr 3y ago

kube-system 3y ago

The AGPL also requires distribution of the modified work if used over a network, even if copies are not distributed. This is the entire reason AGPL was created, because GPL did not do this. > Free software is about computer USER freedom, not DEVELOPER freedom. What are non-developers going to do with source code? Back when FOSS was first conceptualized, all users were developers. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the issue, the fact of the matter is that AGPL quite specifically don't let people do "anything" with it. The software comes with obligations. That is the entire point of copyleft. Sure, you might think the obligations are good -- that doesn't mean they don't exist.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
> What are non-developers going to do with source code? What do you do when your car is missing a feature that you want? You bring it to a mechanic, and you pay them to add the functionality you want. The GPL means freedom. And telling someone they need to respect the freedoms that you grant them is not restricting their freedom. It costs nothing to share your source code, and it should be the default state of software development. It's like the silliness around the tolerance paradox. An action that creates more freedom in the world can never be seen as "less free" than one that doesn't.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > And telling someone they need to respect the freedoms that you grant them is not restricting their freedom. It costs nothing to share your source code, and it should be the default state of software development. I agree with this. However, I don't personally believe AGPL does this as equitably as some other licenses.

tzs 3y ago

> That's not really true. Users need to share their modifications ONLY IF they distribute copies of the modified work, and ONLY TO those whom they distributed modified works to. Except for AGPL, which can require sharing your modifications even if you are not distributing copies of the modified work. Indeed, that was the whole point of AGPL.

pritambaral 3y ago
EDIT: I misread "distribute" as "provide access to".
- kube-system 3y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html > It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server.