3 ms·

Companies (and their lawyers) hate it because the AGPL (and also the GPL and LGPL) contain a lot of fluffy wording which can be interpreted in a lot of ways. I

Companies (and their lawyers) hate it because the AGPL (and also the GPL and LGPL) contain a lot of fluffy wording which can be interpreted in a lot of ways. In contrast take for example the CDDL. It just says: This particular source file is CDDL licensed. If you modify and create a "result" (binary) from it which you distribute you have to share it if someone asks for it. In contrast licenses like the LGPL for example talk about having to supply the means to rebuild it and such. What that means exactly and where it begins and ends? That's for a judge to decide.

darkwater 3y ago
> In contrast licenses like the LGPL for example talk about having to supply the means to rebuild it and such. What that means exactly and where it begins and ends? That's for a judge to decide. That... makes sense? Otherwise you could release your Free Software and at the same time create a proprietary compiler that cannot be reverse engineered because it would break your IP, but hey, you can license it at a nice recurring fee and you are still producing Free Software!
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You're assuming malice, when really it's just impractical in most cases that object to this wording. What if my software build includes a Windows client, which needs some DLL from an install of Visual Studio? The licence wording as I understand it doesn't differentiate well enough between "large cloud company trying to use my work" and "everyone else".
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    In that particular case, simply distribute the DLL with the source code. Microsoft lets you: they even have "redistributable" in the name!
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Hah well, that's true. But there may be tougher cases than the one I came up with.
    - joseda-hg 3y ago
      You're arguing the example, not the concept What if it depends on something that's not created to be redistributable?
      - wizzwizz4 3y ago
        We can ask "what if" forever. I've never seen an example, you've never seen an example: yeah, it's good to be prepared, but what if we're painting ourselves into corners over things that'll never occur?
Zambyte 3y ago
This argument cannot be made in favor of the SSPL, considering the SSPL is literally the AGPL (like, verbatim) with extra terms.

darkwater 3y ago

> In contrast licenses like the LGPL for example talk about having to supply the means to rebuild it and such. What that means exactly and where it begins and ends? That's for a judge to decide. That... makes sense? Otherwise you could release your Free Software and at the same time create a proprietary compiler that cannot be reverse engineered because it would break your IP, but hey, you can license it at a nice recurring fee and you are still producing Free Software!

robertlagrant 3y ago
You're assuming malice, when really it's just impractical in most cases that object to this wording. What if my software build includes a Windows client, which needs some DLL from an install of Visual Studio? The licence wording as I understand it doesn't differentiate well enough between "large cloud company trying to use my work" and "everyone else".
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  In that particular case, simply distribute the DLL with the source code. Microsoft lets you: they even have "redistributable" in the name!
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Hah well, that's true. But there may be tougher cases than the one I came up with.
  - joseda-hg 3y ago
    You're arguing the example, not the concept What if it depends on something that's not created to be redistributable?
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      We can ask "what if" forever. I've never seen an example, you've never seen an example: yeah, it's good to be prepared, but what if we're painting ourselves into corners over things that'll never occur?

Zambyte 3y ago

This argument cannot be made in favor of the SSPL, considering the SSPL is literally the AGPL (like, verbatim) with extra terms.