5 ms·

I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise. It's proba

I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise. It's probably why Apple stopped updating all their GNU binaries, and you have to sideload stuff with brew to use anything released in the last 10 years. If I had to guess - The patent rights clause weirds out a lot of lawyers. Obviously anyone who works with hardware doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause. Another possibility is the AGPL (which IS lethal for obvious reasons) is often conflated with GPLv3. All I know is GPLv2 is fine, GPLv3 is usually not, and AGPL is never possible in corporations that I've worked for.

graemep 2y ago
I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)
  - graemep 2y ago
    So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell? Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.
trws 2y ago
A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.
- graemep 2y ago
  > A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.
- worik 2y ago
  > won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL. I feel out of touch Why?>
  - swiftcoder 2y ago
    The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)
    - orthoxerox 2y ago
      Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.
      - swiftcoder 2y ago
        > AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. And being subject to the AGPL, you are obligated to provide access to the source code for your entire server binary to anyone who connects to and interacts with your service across a network. Quoting from https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t... : > Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program... > These terms cover the distribution of verbatim or modified source code as well as compiled executable binaries. However, they only apply when a program is distributed, or more specifically, conveyed to a recipient... > The AGPLv3 does not adjust or expand the definition of conveying. Instead, it includes an additional right that if the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, the user is entitled to receive the source code of the version being used.
coldpie 2y ago
> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.
PeterCorless 2y ago
I used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success. Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.

graemep 2y ago

I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.

swiftcoder 2y ago
They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)
- graemep 2y ago
  So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell? Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.

trws 2y ago

A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.

graemep 2y ago
> A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.
worik 2y ago
> won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL. I feel out of touch Why?>
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)
  - orthoxerox 2y ago
    Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.
    - swiftcoder 2y ago
      > AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. And being subject to the AGPL, you are obligated to provide access to the source code for your entire server binary to anyone who connects to and interacts with your service across a network. Quoting from https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t... : > Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program... > These terms cover the distribution of verbatim or modified source code as well as compiled executable binaries. However, they only apply when a program is distributed, or more specifically, conveyed to a recipient... > The AGPLv3 does not adjust or expand the definition of conveying. Instead, it includes an additional right that if the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, the user is entitled to receive the source code of the version being used.

coldpie 2y ago

> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.

PeterCorless 2y ago

I used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success. Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.