4 ms·

>My reading is that they force you to publicize source code if you're hosting modified versions of the services. Your phrase "modified versions of the services

by jasode 3y ago

>My reading is that they force you to publicize source code if you're hosting modified versions of the services. Your phrase "modified versions of the services" is glossing over some major details. If we use MongoDB as an example to discuss (since they authored the SSPL license)... One part that some open source advocates disagree with is and interpret as overly-broad overreach is this fragment that extends the source code exposure to other internal projects that are not MongoDB : - ", including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software," That type of "expose your entire tech stack source code and not just the modified MongoDB source" wording in the SSPL goes beyond the more limited scope of AGPL. In a past thread, you can read about people disagreeing with SSPL's wording : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 That thread also has MongoDB employee metheus responding to various criticisms. If you don't want to read the whole thread, you can do Ctrl+F search for "metheus" to just read his responses.

stavros 3y ago
Thanks, this is informative.
jchw 3y ago
On top of that, this clause is set to trigger upon granting network access to the program, not on modifying it. IANAL but my understanding is that AGPL still desperately wants to be an additive copyright license and not a contract/EULA so it only applies to copying and modifying source. In practice this seems more than a little unintuitive in its implications, But, OTOH, it does seem to help ensure that AGPL is less of a legal threat: if you are just casually deploying unmodified AGPL software, as far as I know, you don't really need to treat it differently from GPL. I'm definitely not going to argue it's a good license, but I think the strong distaste for it is a little unjustified, and seems like corporate lawyer FUD.

by jasode 3y ago

stavros 3y ago

Thanks, this is informative.

jchw 3y ago

On top of that, this clause is set to trigger upon granting network access to the program, not on modifying it. IANAL but my understanding is that AGPL still desperately wants to be an additive copyright license and not a contract/EULA so it only applies to copying and modifying source. In practice this seems more than a little unintuitive in its implications, But, OTOH, it does seem to help ensure that AGPL is less of a legal threat: if you are just casually deploying unmodified AGPL software, as far as I know, you don't really need to treat it differently from GPL. I'm definitely not going to argue it's a good license, but I think the strong distaste for it is a little unjustified, and seems like corporate lawyer FUD.