5 ms·

I'm confused how someone would generally consider the AGPL to be non-free, but still perceive the GPL as a free license. In either case you don't have to pay f

I'm confused how someone would generally consider the AGPL to be non-free, but still perceive the GPL as a free license. In either case you don't have to pay for the software, can modify it however you'd like, and run it wherever you want. You just have to share the modified source code.

wongarsu 3y ago
If anything, the AGPL is the modern incarnation of the ideals of the GPL. If SaaS business had been a big thing in 1989 I'm sure the original GPL would have contained wording similar to the AGPL. It's just that back then nobody though of people hosting software as a threat to the free flow of software improvements.
- dartos 3y ago
  This entirely
- lupire 3y ago
  Not clear. Stallman already carved out exceptions for "appliances" that had computer chips, like microwaves. Stalllman wanted is own general purpose computer to be libre, not freedom to control other people computers (Cloud).
  - reaperman 3y ago
    So, I think yours is a reasonable position. I hear it and integrate it into my thinking. I have two thoughts on what you bring up, the first is a story I remember about Stallman being really frustrated with firmware on a printer (not drivers on a “general computing” device). I think reading this story[0] should be reasonably self-explanatory and not require additional exposition or warrant in this HN thread. My other thought is that increasingly, our “general computing” applications are moving to web apps / cloud apps, and not stored on our devices. So while you may be correct about RMS, and maybe he wouldn’t have cared today about the concerns AGPL addresses, I personally wonder that he would, and think its at least reasonable for many people to generalize his FSF philosophy to cover general computing experiences that aren’t hosted locally but are still part of the primary computing interface that we use to interact with our current general computing devices. 0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201d-redux-a-testimonial-about-the-injustice-of-proprietary-firmware https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...
p_l 3y ago
Free software theoretically is against EULAs and about empowerment of end users. AGPL is an EULA that is additionally really badly written, especially compared to clarity of GPLv2-only.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  The AGPL is the GPLv3 with only the addition/modification of section 13. Outside of section 13, there are only 5 words changed in the rest of the terms of the license and those 5 changes are the introduction of the word 'Affero' between 'GNU' and 'General Public License'. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. Section 13 only states that someone/something interacting over a network is considered a user (and that you can combine GPLv3 and AGPLv3 works). That is the only change compared to GPLv3. It does not otherwise change what rights the user has or what is considered a corresponding source (i.e. what the licensed work contaminates). Those are word for word identical between the GPLv3 and the AGPLv3. If you have an issue with what rights/restrictions the AGPLv3 provides a user of the software, that issue is with the GPLv3, not the AGPLv3.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I'm not sure why the downvotes. Yes, the AGPL was essentially intended to plug the SaaS (maybe it was still being called application service providers at the time) loophole seen by some whereby delivering a network service wasn't considered distribution--and therefore didn't trigger copyleft provisions--with the GPL (either v2 or v3). A lot of work went into GPLv3 and a lot of legal niceties were added as well as the watered-down TiVoization language but really isn't a lot of practical difference between GPLv2 and v3.

wongarsu 3y ago

If anything, the AGPL is the modern incarnation of the ideals of the GPL. If SaaS business had been a big thing in 1989 I'm sure the original GPL would have contained wording similar to the AGPL. It's just that back then nobody though of people hosting software as a threat to the free flow of software improvements.

dartos 3y ago
This entirely
lupire 3y ago
Not clear. Stallman already carved out exceptions for "appliances" that had computer chips, like microwaves. Stalllman wanted is own general purpose computer to be libre, not freedom to control other people computers (Cloud).
- reaperman 3y ago
  So, I think yours is a reasonable position. I hear it and integrate it into my thinking. I have two thoughts on what you bring up, the first is a story I remember about Stallman being really frustrated with firmware on a printer (not drivers on a “general computing” device). I think reading this story[0] should be reasonably self-explanatory and not require additional exposition or warrant in this HN thread. My other thought is that increasingly, our “general computing” applications are moving to web apps / cloud apps, and not stored on our devices. So while you may be correct about RMS, and maybe he wouldn’t have cared today about the concerns AGPL addresses, I personally wonder that he would, and think its at least reasonable for many people to generalize his FSF philosophy to cover general computing experiences that aren’t hosted locally but are still part of the primary computing interface that we use to interact with our current general computing devices. 0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201d-redux-a-testimonial-about-the-injustice-of-proprietary-firmware https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...

p_l 3y ago

Free software theoretically is against EULAs and about empowerment of end users. AGPL is an EULA that is additionally really badly written, especially compared to clarity of GPLv2-only.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago
The AGPL is the GPLv3 with only the addition/modification of section 13. Outside of section 13, there are only 5 words changed in the rest of the terms of the license and those 5 changes are the introduction of the word 'Affero' between 'GNU' and 'General Public License'. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, 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, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License. Section 13 only states that someone/something interacting over a network is considered a user (and that you can combine GPLv3 and AGPLv3 works). That is the only change compared to GPLv3. It does not otherwise change what rights the user has or what is considered a corresponding source (i.e. what the licensed work contaminates). Those are word for word identical between the GPLv3 and the AGPLv3. If you have an issue with what rights/restrictions the AGPLv3 provides a user of the software, that issue is with the GPLv3, not the AGPLv3.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I'm not sure why the downvotes. Yes, the AGPL was essentially intended to plug the SaaS (maybe it was still being called application service providers at the time) loophole seen by some whereby delivering a network service wasn't considered distribution--and therefore didn't trigger copyleft provisions--with the GPL (either v2 or v3). A lot of work went into GPLv3 and a lot of legal niceties were added as well as the watered-down TiVoization language but really isn't a lot of practical difference between GPLv2 and v3.