3 ms·

It's good to see the GNU project finally recommend AGPL (prohibits use in proprietary services) over GPLv3 (prohibits shipping software on practically all moder

by hedora 2y ago

It's good to see the GNU project finally recommend AGPL (prohibits use in proprietary services) over GPLv3 (prohibits shipping software on practically all modern consumer devices). Maybe they could update AGPL and call it GPLv4, so the "or later" clause would kick in and fix things for real.

Volundr 2y ago
Doesn't the "or later" clause give the user the option of using the software under the newer license? I'm pretty sure they can keep applying the GPLv3.
- Snild 2y ago
  Yes, until the original project starts releasing new changes under the new license. From there, the "selfish" party would have to fork and maintain what they have on their own.
  - Volundr 2y ago
    That doesn't require GPLv4 though. Anyone wanting to switch their project to the AGPL can just start releasing new versions under it. Existing code would be available as GPLv3 and the newer stuff under AGPL, same as the v4 scenario.
Arnavion 2y ago
Yeah, when I was planning to switch my personal Apache-licensed stuff to GPL, I decided to switch to AGPL instead. Most of my stuff makes no sense for it to be used as part of a web service etc, but it doesn't hurt to make it future-proof.
johnea 2y ago
Not sure what you mean by this. GPL s/w runs on all desktop OSs, and at least on Android (see many examples on F-DROID). Maybe you're refering to iOS? I'm not sure about the collsion between GPL and Apple's terms.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- scblock 2y ago
  It's completely possible to take a piece of GPLv2 or v3 software, make extensive changes, and provide it only as a web service without ever being required to make those changes available to the community. AGPL solves for that important case, where if you use AGPL software to provide a service and make changes, in addition to providing the service you must also make your changes available to the community. But I think I misunderstood your point, you were focused on the GPLv3 itself. Which I don't think prohibits running on any computer as you say.
  - johnea 2y ago
    You're correct that I was refering to GPL s/w being able to run on "consumer devices". But to your first point: I'm not a lawyer (thankfully), but my interpretation of GPL: that the s/w source must be published if the s/w is "distributed", would require the source of SaaSS s/w to be published, since the "service" is distributing that s/w. Is that not correct?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > the "service" is distributing that s/w If it's running on their machine, they're not distributing it; users don't actually receive the software to run themselves and are instead making requests to a server that is running the software. (Client software would be different, of course.) I am also not a lawyer so perhaps take with a grain of salt.
fsckboy 2y ago
>GNU project finally recommend AGPL are you sure? AGPL was developed in cooperation with FSF which developed/published the GPL license; GNU is a software project published with the GPL license, but the license and GNU are connected at the hip with Stallman. The GPL2 license, which GNU was originally published under, did not allow substitutions of new licenses, including GPL3 and AGPL which may by why they might not have appeared "supportive".

by hedora 2y ago

Volundr 2y ago

Doesn't the "or later" clause give the user the option of using the software under the newer license? I'm pretty sure they can keep applying the GPLv3.

Snild 2y ago
Yes, until the original project starts releasing new changes under the new license. From there, the "selfish" party would have to fork and maintain what they have on their own.
- Volundr 2y ago
  That doesn't require GPLv4 though. Anyone wanting to switch their project to the AGPL can just start releasing new versions under it. Existing code would be available as GPLv3 and the newer stuff under AGPL, same as the v4 scenario.

Arnavion 2y ago

Yeah, when I was planning to switch my personal Apache-licensed stuff to GPL, I decided to switch to AGPL instead. Most of my stuff makes no sense for it to be used as part of a web service etc, but it doesn't hurt to make it future-proof.

johnea 2y ago

Not sure what you mean by this. GPL s/w runs on all desktop OSs, and at least on Android (see many examples on F-DROID). Maybe you're refering to iOS? I'm not sure about the collsion between GPL and Apple's terms.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
scblock 2y ago
It's completely possible to take a piece of GPLv2 or v3 software, make extensive changes, and provide it only as a web service without ever being required to make those changes available to the community. AGPL solves for that important case, where if you use AGPL software to provide a service and make changes, in addition to providing the service you must also make your changes available to the community. But I think I misunderstood your point, you were focused on the GPLv3 itself. Which I don't think prohibits running on any computer as you say.
- johnea 2y ago
  You're correct that I was refering to GPL s/w being able to run on "consumer devices". But to your first point: I'm not a lawyer (thankfully), but my interpretation of GPL: that the s/w source must be published if the s/w is "distributed", would require the source of SaaSS s/w to be published, since the "service" is distributing that s/w. Is that not correct?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > the "service" is distributing that s/w If it's running on their machine, they're not distributing it; users don't actually receive the software to run themselves and are instead making requests to a server that is running the software. (Client software would be different, of course.) I am also not a lawyer so perhaps take with a grain of salt.

fsckboy 2y ago

>GNU project finally recommend AGPL are you sure? AGPL was developed in cooperation with FSF which developed/published the GPL license; GNU is a software project published with the GPL license, but the license and GNU are connected at the hip with Stallman. The GPL2 license, which GNU was originally published under, did not allow substitutions of new licenses, including GPL3 and AGPL which may by why they might not have appeared "supportive".