2 ms·

I'm confused. The part with Stallman is about using AGPL vs GPL and has nothing to do with the CLA, has it?

• matheusmoreira 2y ago
  It's an excerpt of a much bigger email. I told him about corporations using AGPLv3 as leverage in order to build SaaS products around the software. As copyright holders, they can do whatever they want while everyone else must comply with license terms. The CLA is a necessary component of that strategy. I asked him what he thought of the practice. That's what he replied. He didn't go into much detail about SaaS. He said it was too broad a term to judge. Here's the full email exchange: Hello, Dr. Stallman. I would like to know your views on the ethics of certain uses of the AGPLv3. There are apparently some corporations that are releasing free software under the AGPLv3 while building software-as-a-service platforms using the same software. It is my understanding that as the copyright holders they have the right to do it without any problems. They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their competitors to use the code to compete against them. In online discussions on this matter, I pointed to an article that you wrote regarding the ethics of selling exceptions to the GPL. You argued that that if selling this exception was unethical then so was releasing software under permissive licenses, and rejected the idea that it was unethical. The conclusion was that this enabled proprietary software to be freed, an ideal outcome. I'd like to ask if you think the same logic applies to the SaaS situation I mentioned. I think it does, but others did not agree. People are using the AGPLv3 to maximize leverage. Corporations seem to be incapable of tolerating the license's terms, a situation that leads to copyright holders providing a business solution: paying for it. They can buy special permission to use the software. These days, it appears the choice being offered is to buy into the company's SaaS platform instead of purchasing a special permission or license. The exact mechanism employed by the business seems like a minor detail to me but perhaps there are some ethical considerations that I'm not seeing. So I decided to send you this email and ask what your opinion on the matter is. Thank you for your time, Matheus --- > There are apparently some corporations [...] "Software as a service" covers such a broad range of computing practices that I generally don't use it. It is too broad, and gives too little information, to judge whether a practice is good or bad. > It is my understanding [...] I see what you mean. The original developer can engage in a practice that blocks coopertation. By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL, would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice. In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it is also more harmful. On balance, using the AGPL is better.
  • palata 2y ago
    Right. So this is about AGPL, not about CLA... I thought we were talking about CLAs.