4 ms·

I'm not a legal expert but my understanding is that your perspective is a common misconception. I'd recommend reading this: https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/

by matlin 2y ago

I'm not a legal expert but my understanding is that your perspective is a common misconception. I'd recommend reading this: https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

andrewmutz 2y ago
What types of usage do you think the AGPL would prevent that the GPL license would have allowed? What situations were you trying to prevent?
- matlin 2y ago
  From my understanding, if someone were to create a private fork of Triplit Server add some modifications and then launch a hosted service (i.e. serving the modified Triplit Server over the internet) they wouldn't be compelled to open-source their modifications under GPL but would under AGPL.
dspillett 2y ago
That article isn't right generally, by my understanding. It might be⁰ for their own use (a DB engine) but not for a library that might be more directly linked to an application. AGPL is based on GPL, not LGPL, and like the GPL linking would be considered creating a derivative work which should then be made available as per the [A]GPL licence. This won't stop me licensing my work using AGPL. If commercial interests don't want to use it then I'm fine with that¹. If they do want to use my stuff but don't want to use anything covered by AGPL then they can always contact me to try negotiate a different arrangement. -------- [0] IANAL, hence “might be”. Whether loose coupling counts the same as linking is a grey area IIRC. This potential confusion is why some avoid GPL/AGPL, if only to be on the safe side from their PoV. [1] Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way.² [2] As the linked article says: “If you don’t use the AGPL[³], they’re just going to take your software and give nothing back. If you do use the AGPL, they’re just going to develop a solution in-house. There’s no outcome where Google pays you.” [3] Here they are comparing AGPL to less restrictive licenses such as MIT.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way This seems less fitting if it's true that what you're "giving" is some React bindings, and what they have to "give back" is their entire frontend application.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    They don't have to give back if they don't use those bindings. They could use someone else's, or write their own. They could also try negotiate an alternate arrangement, some authors may be willing to do that (assuming they have relevant permission from other contributors if it isn't a solo project, of course). The example you give seems to be the unreasonable one IMO: “our thing is bigger, so we expect to use your smaller thing how we want”.
mkl 2y ago
Your link confirms victor9000's point and contradicts your first sentence. The frontend libraries (the client-side database, the React and Svelte bindings, etc.) are AGPL, so your whole frontend that builds on them must be AGPL.
- matlin 2y ago
  Can you point to which part in the license gives you the impression that using an unmodified version of AGPL code requires using AGPL for your entire application? Either way your interpretation is not our intention so I'll make sure that's clarified.
  - mkl 2y ago
    AGPL is a "viral" or "strong copyleft" license [0], like GPL: if any part of a piece of software is AGPL, the entire software must be AGPL. The license [1] says this in section 5: > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > [...] > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. If you intended it to be non-viral (weak copyleft) and based on distributing modified versions of your files, the Mozilla Public License [2] may be a better fit for the frontend libraries. Then people could use them unmodified in software with any license, but they would have to release source code of modified versions of those files. This would not do what you want for the server software though, as the "release source code" only applies when distributing software (which is not happening if it's staying on the server). I am not an expert, and it is not clear to me whether the frontend and backend constitute a single work according to the license. This is important to investigate. If they did count as a single work, rather than two separate works communicating, then the AGPL from the server software would apply to the client software and licensing the frontend libraries MPL wouldn't work. This says something about that in the other direction: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyl... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#license-text https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#license-text [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
dehrmann 2y ago
> common misconception This always comes up with copyleft licenses. It's rarely 100% clear what's allowed, except maybe the LGPL where the intent of the license is obvious. Everything else is some amount of a viral license, and it's safest to just avoid it.

by matlin 2y ago

andrewmutz 2y ago

What types of usage do you think the AGPL would prevent that the GPL license would have allowed? What situations were you trying to prevent?

matlin 2y ago
From my understanding, if someone were to create a private fork of Triplit Server add some modifications and then launch a hosted service (i.e. serving the modified Triplit Server over the internet) they wouldn't be compelled to open-source their modifications under GPL but would under AGPL.

dspillett 2y ago

That article isn't right generally, by my understanding. It might be⁰ for their own use (a DB engine) but not for a library that might be more directly linked to an application. AGPL is based on GPL, not LGPL, and like the GPL linking would be considered creating a derivative work which should then be made available as per the [A]GPL licence. This won't stop me licensing my work using AGPL. If commercial interests don't want to use it then I'm fine with that¹. If they do want to use my stuff but don't want to use anything covered by AGPL then they can always contact me to try negotiate a different arrangement. -------- [0] IANAL, hence “might be”. Whether loose coupling counts the same as linking is a grey area IIRC. This potential confusion is why some avoid GPL/AGPL, if only to be on the safe side from their PoV. [1] Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way.² [2] As the linked article says: “If you don’t use the AGPL[³], they’re just going to take your software and give nothing back. If you do use the AGPL, they’re just going to develop a solution in-house. There’s no outcome where Google pays you.” [3] Here they are comparing AGPL to less restrictive licenses such as MIT.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way This seems less fitting if it's true that what you're "giving" is some React bindings, and what they have to "give back" is their entire frontend application.
- dspillett 2y ago
  They don't have to give back if they don't use those bindings. They could use someone else's, or write their own. They could also try negotiate an alternate arrangement, some authors may be willing to do that (assuming they have relevant permission from other contributors if it isn't a solo project, of course). The example you give seems to be the unreasonable one IMO: “our thing is bigger, so we expect to use your smaller thing how we want”.

mkl 2y ago

Your link confirms victor9000's point and contradicts your first sentence. The frontend libraries (the client-side database, the React and Svelte bindings, etc.) are AGPL, so your whole frontend that builds on them must be AGPL.

matlin 2y ago
Can you point to which part in the license gives you the impression that using an unmodified version of AGPL code requires using AGPL for your entire application? Either way your interpretation is not our intention so I'll make sure that's clarified.
- mkl 2y ago
  AGPL is a "viral" or "strong copyleft" license [0], like GPL: if any part of a piece of software is AGPL, the entire software must be AGPL. The license [1] says this in section 5: > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > [...] > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. If you intended it to be non-viral (weak copyleft) and based on distributing modified versions of your files, the Mozilla Public License [2] may be a better fit for the frontend libraries. Then people could use them unmodified in software with any license, but they would have to release source code of modified versions of those files. This would not do what you want for the server software though, as the "release source code" only applies when distributing software (which is not happening if it's staying on the server). I am not an expert, and it is not clear to me whether the frontend and backend constitute a single work according to the license. This is important to investigate. If they did count as a single work, rather than two separate works communicating, then the AGPL from the server software would apply to the client software and licensing the frontend libraries MPL wouldn't work. This says something about that in the other direction: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3ServerAsUser [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyl... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#license-text https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#license-text [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License

dehrmann 2y ago

> common misconception This always comes up with copyleft licenses. It's rarely 100% clear what's allowed, except maybe the LGPL where the intent of the license is obvious. Everything else is some amount of a viral license, and it's safest to just avoid it.