3 ms·

Keep in mind that the obligation to release source code applies to modified versions of AGPL-licensed components. So if you simply use something without modify

by zvr 2y ago

Keep in mind that the obligation to release source code applies to modified versions of AGPL-licensed components. So if you simply use something without modifying it, you have nothing to do.

Wowfunhappy 2y ago
...are you sure that's right? At first blush, it feels like it break the viral nature of the GPL. It's pretty well understood that non-GPL software cannot link to GPL-licensed libraries, which is why the LGPL exists. This is true even though most software doesn't need to vendor or otherwise modify upstream libraries. Or does AGPL have a special carve out for this, different from the GPL?
- bayindirh 2y ago
  You don’t need to distribute anything if you didn’t change anything. You’re using something available somewhere else already. Vitality comes from the way you combine this AGPL code with other code and how you can’t change the license of modified Plausible CE, or the thing you build using Plausible CE. If you modify Plausible, you distribute the modified version. If you build something using Plausible, you distribute the thing, and with AGPL license. That’s it.
  - Wowfunhappy 2y ago
    By including Plausible in a bigger website, doesn't that website become a derivative work of Plausible? If not, why is this situation different from an app that links a GPL'd library?
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      According to the docs [0], Plausible CE is installed as a Docker image, running in its set of containers, as an independent service from your site, which you only add the tracking snippet. This doesn't make your site as a derivative of Plausible, but you're installing Plausible as a different tool, independent from your site. Like installing a GPL binary doesn't make all BSD licensed binaries switch to GPL license on your system, running an AGPL licensed service on your server which communicates with your site doesn't make your site AGPL automatically, because you're not deriving Plausible, but you're installing and using it. Now, if you want to build a service/website by directly modifying the Plausible CE source code, you have to open that derivative codebase with AGPL, only if you're redistributing the modified code (i.e. making the modified website available to other people). If you modified the code, but you're not distributing it (i.e. Only you're using it yourself), you can keep it to yourself. [0]: https://github.com/plausible/community-edition/ https://github.com/plausible/community-edition/
- zvr 2y ago
  No, AGPL does not have any "special carve out". But in the section that is the difference from GPL (section 13, "Remote Network Interaction"), it clearly states: "if you modify the Program, your modified version must ..." [emphasis added]. So the extra stuff that differentiates AGPL from GPL applies only for modified versions of the software. For the rest, usual GPL stuff applies: if you distribute the binary, you must make the sources available, etc.

by zvr 2y ago

Keep in mind that the obligation to release source code applies to modified versions of AGPL-licensed components. So if you simply use something without modifying it, you have nothing to do.

Wowfunhappy 2y ago

...are you sure that's right? At first blush, it feels like it break the viral nature of the GPL. It's pretty well understood that non-GPL software cannot link to GPL-licensed libraries, which is why the LGPL exists. This is true even though most software doesn't need to vendor or otherwise modify upstream libraries. Or does AGPL have a special carve out for this, different from the GPL?

bayindirh 2y ago
You don’t need to distribute anything if you didn’t change anything. You’re using something available somewhere else already. Vitality comes from the way you combine this AGPL code with other code and how you can’t change the license of modified Plausible CE, or the thing you build using Plausible CE. If you modify Plausible, you distribute the modified version. If you build something using Plausible, you distribute the thing, and with AGPL license. That’s it.
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  By including Plausible in a bigger website, doesn't that website become a derivative work of Plausible? If not, why is this situation different from an app that links a GPL'd library?
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    According to the docs [0], Plausible CE is installed as a Docker image, running in its set of containers, as an independent service from your site, which you only add the tracking snippet. This doesn't make your site as a derivative of Plausible, but you're installing Plausible as a different tool, independent from your site. Like installing a GPL binary doesn't make all BSD licensed binaries switch to GPL license on your system, running an AGPL licensed service on your server which communicates with your site doesn't make your site AGPL automatically, because you're not deriving Plausible, but you're installing and using it. Now, if you want to build a service/website by directly modifying the Plausible CE source code, you have to open that derivative codebase with AGPL, only if you're redistributing the modified code (i.e. making the modified website available to other people). If you modified the code, but you're not distributing it (i.e. Only you're using it yourself), you can keep it to yourself. [0]: https://github.com/plausible/community-edition/ https://github.com/plausible/community-edition/
zvr 2y ago
No, AGPL does not have any "special carve out". But in the section that is the difference from GPL (section 13, "Remote Network Interaction"), it clearly states: "if you modify the Program, your modified version must ..." [emphasis added]. So the extra stuff that differentiates AGPL from GPL applies only for modified versions of the software. For the rest, usual GPL stuff applies: if you distribute the binary, you must make the sources available, etc.