3 ms·

> The AGPL deception is you brand yourself as community-minded. As long as you don't rely on external contributions that's fair. But what the AGPL startups don'

by lmm 2y ago

> The AGPL deception is you brand yourself as community-minded. As long as you don't rely on external contributions that's fair. But what the AGPL startups don't emphasize is they require you to either assign your copyright to them or give them extra privileges to your contributions to be able to relicense it under non AGPL (if they don't they don't know what they are doing). There's nothing specific to the AGPL or startups here, it's a common model. The FSF themselves require copyright assignment if you want to contribute to FSF projects.

tgma 2y ago
The model is equivalent. Everything else is different. FSF's structure, purpose, history and guardrails against non-hijacking make it distinct from a startup whose purpose is to claim "open source" but preclude Amazon and keep their revenue stream. Nothing against them or their business model; it's their prerogative, of course. So is the community and customer's read on their future actions. To claim you should assume they are the same is preposterous and/or fooling yourself. Criminals and police officers both have guns too. Doesn't make them identical.
- lmm 2y ago
  Organisations that start by claiming to be open-source and rug-pulling are something to be wary of. But neither AGPL nor CLAs are a particular red flag for that. Plenty of well-behaved organisations use CLAs or copyright assignments, and plenty of badly-behaved organisations use licenses other than the AGPL (e.g. Redis had a 3-clause BSD-style license but still did the same thing).
  - tgma 2y ago
    Can’t really refute a hypothetical. Is there a polymarket bet for that? I will categorically take the under on your position for any company doing CLA with AGPL. The intent is so glaringly obvious.
teddyh 2y ago
Firstly, you are wrong. The FSF does not require copyright assignment. It is up to the individual software projects to decide if they require them or not. Secondly, don’t equate the FSF with any other company. The FSF is in the unique position in that the FSF could change the GPL if they wanted to. If you use the GPL/AGPL, the FSF is inherently trustworthy; therefore, it’s completely reasonable to also trust the FSF with a copyright assignment.
- powersnail 2y ago
  > The FSF is in the unique position in that the FSF could change the GPL if they wanted to. They can publish new versions of GPL if they want to. They can't retroactively change the terms that users of the software and contributors agreed to. Just like any code owners who has the complete control of copyright can publish their code under a different license.
  - richardwhiuk 2y ago
    GPL includes a line which allows it to be used under any future version of the GPL. So if you license under GPLv2, the FSF can create GPLv5 and add whatever clause they like in it.
    - zzo38computer 2y ago
      That is only if the license of that software says they can use later versions of GPL; it is not automatic.
    - powersnail 2y ago
      If I accept their license on 2024-08-14 to use their software, they can do whatever they want to the license after that, but they won't be able to revoke my license to use the code as of 2024-08-14 under the license present to me on 2024-08-14. No update on the license can retroactively change what I agreed to.
    - tgma 2y ago
      Importantly, GPL does not include such line. That line is not part of the GPL. Critical software such as Linux famously do not have that and are not GPLv3 for example. The Author can choose to license the Copyrighted Work under various licenses. The common boilerplate that many Authors of GPL software choose to use is a boilerplate that says they are licensing their Work under GPL version X or any later versions supplied by FSF. That boilerplate is Author's declaration of license contract and not the license itself. Basically the Author is directly saying (not through the GPL text) that "I trust FSF to come up with future licenses and call whatever they want GPL version Y [Y>X] and I'll be willing to license my work under that license sight-unseen also."

by lmm 2y ago

tgma 2y ago

The model is equivalent. Everything else is different. FSF's structure, purpose, history and guardrails against non-hijacking make it distinct from a startup whose purpose is to claim "open source" but preclude Amazon and keep their revenue stream. Nothing against them or their business model; it's their prerogative, of course. So is the community and customer's read on their future actions. To claim you should assume they are the same is preposterous and/or fooling yourself. Criminals and police officers both have guns too. Doesn't make them identical.

lmm 2y ago
Organisations that start by claiming to be open-source and rug-pulling are something to be wary of. But neither AGPL nor CLAs are a particular red flag for that. Plenty of well-behaved organisations use CLAs or copyright assignments, and plenty of badly-behaved organisations use licenses other than the AGPL (e.g. Redis had a 3-clause BSD-style license but still did the same thing).
- tgma 2y ago
  Can’t really refute a hypothetical. Is there a polymarket bet for that? I will categorically take the under on your position for any company doing CLA with AGPL. The intent is so glaringly obvious.

teddyh 2y ago

Firstly, you are wrong. The FSF does not require copyright assignment. It is up to the individual software projects to decide if they require them or not. Secondly, don’t equate the FSF with any other company. The FSF is in the unique position in that the FSF could change the GPL if they wanted to. If you use the GPL/AGPL, the FSF is inherently trustworthy; therefore, it’s completely reasonable to also trust the FSF with a copyright assignment.

powersnail 2y ago
> The FSF is in the unique position in that the FSF could change the GPL if they wanted to. They can publish new versions of GPL if they want to. They can't retroactively change the terms that users of the software and contributors agreed to. Just like any code owners who has the complete control of copyright can publish their code under a different license.
- richardwhiuk 2y ago
  GPL includes a line which allows it to be used under any future version of the GPL. So if you license under GPLv2, the FSF can create GPLv5 and add whatever clause they like in it.
  - zzo38computer 2y ago
    That is only if the license of that software says they can use later versions of GPL; it is not automatic.
  - powersnail 2y ago
    If I accept their license on 2024-08-14 to use their software, they can do whatever they want to the license after that, but they won't be able to revoke my license to use the code as of 2024-08-14 under the license present to me on 2024-08-14. No update on the license can retroactively change what I agreed to.
  - tgma 2y ago
    Importantly, GPL does not include such line. That line is not part of the GPL. Critical software such as Linux famously do not have that and are not GPLv3 for example. The Author can choose to license the Copyrighted Work under various licenses. The common boilerplate that many Authors of GPL software choose to use is a boilerplate that says they are licensing their Work under GPL version X or any later versions supplied by FSF. That boilerplate is Author's declaration of license contract and not the license itself. Basically the Author is directly saying (not through the GPL text) that "I trust FSF to come up with future licenses and call whatever they want GPL version Y [Y>X] and I'll be willing to license my work under that license sight-unseen also."