3 ms·

I'm always grateful for open source code, but on AGPL I can only quote the lawyer Kyle Mitchell: "Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from spac

I'm always grateful for open source code, but on AGPL I can only quote the lawyer Kyle Mitchell: "Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke..." "It’s not just hard for lawyers, who have the legal picture and can parse the whole license very carefully without passing out...It’s also hard for hackers, even those familiar with free software lore, who lack the legal side of the picture and a sense of what other ways things might have been said. Imagine how people who don’t know software, law, legal drafting, software architecture, hacker culture, or the self-styled 'philosophical' musings of one Richard M. Stallman feel." https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL As Mitchell implies folks who want network copyleft should look into the more straightforward OSL3, IMO. But it's something, and it's not my call to make because I didn't write the code, so properly I can only be grateful.

skrebbel 1y ago
This is the first time I read about OSL3 (https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php). I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty. But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution" (ok, fair), which means you must OSL-license your changes too (ok, fair too). But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.
- em-bee 1y ago
  how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back it doesn't. but neither does the AGPL. the only reason companies avoid the AGPL is because the AGPL stipulates that anything that the software is integrated with must be distributed as well. they are avoiding the GPL for the same reason. i don't know if the OSL does that too. if it doesn't then it would be less protective than the AGPL. the AGPL works to prevent competition because companies are scared of it, but that was not its intention. none of the GPL licenses are intended to prevent competition without giving back. and that is the real problem that redis and other companies are facing: how can we share source with our users without allowing well funded competitors to eat our lunch. there are several experimental licenses that are trying to address that problem, among others, FUTO is working on that, as is bruce perens. but so far no clear choice has emerged. and unfortunately many see the idea of limiting competition as against the spirit of FOSS. personally, i think that needs to change.
- eduction 1y ago
  > But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made. What is your definition of “giving back?” To me that means open sourcing your changes, which as you note is what the license requires.
  - skrebbel 1y ago
    Yeah sorry, stupid choice of words given the subject. I meant paying them for the privilege somehow, which has been Redis (the company)'s goal this whole time. GP suggests OSL3 solves this and I'm trying to figure out how.
    - eduction 1y ago
      Oh I see. IANAL but if the plan with agpl is to sell commercial versions for people who don’t want to worry about FOSS licensing/infection then it may be a great license for that precisely because of the lack of clarity. You can do similar with OSL - “pay us to get it under a different license where you can make a closed derivative work” - but OSL clearly allows linking (according to its author) without the mere linking requiring opening the thing that links it so it may be strictly worse for Redis. I was merely saying OSL is better than agpl as a license (imo). It’s very clear. But lack of clarity can have strategic value.
em-bee 1y ago
maybe if you are a lawyer, and if you are trying to get around the license somehow, or of you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging, but as a FOSS user and developer, it is pretty straightforward: the software runs on a server, you connect to it, you get access to the source that is running on the server. if you believe in the spirit of Free Software then there is no question what you should do. if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that. also, consider that the AGPL is trying to be compatible to the GPL. that forces it to be more complicated. the OSL doesn't have that problem, and the OSL is also not compatible with the GPL, which is only ok if you don't want to integrate any other GPL software. although i suppose since the GPL doesn't require distribution on network access, this may not be an issue. but i don't know, i am not a lawyer. and so to be sure, i'll prefer the AGPL.
- eduction 1y ago
  > if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that. Kyle’s point is pretty clear: it’s really hard to tell what agpl actually requires. So it’s a bad, unclear license whatever your position is - whether you think your code should virally make everything that links it open source, or if you expressly don’t want that and only want the library itself network copyleft. What does agpl actually require? Even lawyers are stumped.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details. the details only matter for those who are not into FOSS and are forced to comply with the license without having the desire to do so. one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception. so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.

skrebbel 1y ago

This is the first time I read about OSL3 (https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php). I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty. But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution" (ok, fair), which means you must OSL-license your changes too (ok, fair too). But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.

em-bee 1y ago
how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back it doesn't. but neither does the AGPL. the only reason companies avoid the AGPL is because the AGPL stipulates that anything that the software is integrated with must be distributed as well. they are avoiding the GPL for the same reason. i don't know if the OSL does that too. if it doesn't then it would be less protective than the AGPL. the AGPL works to prevent competition because companies are scared of it, but that was not its intention. none of the GPL licenses are intended to prevent competition without giving back. and that is the real problem that redis and other companies are facing: how can we share source with our users without allowing well funded competitors to eat our lunch. there are several experimental licenses that are trying to address that problem, among others, FUTO is working on that, as is bruce perens. but so far no clear choice has emerged. and unfortunately many see the idea of limiting competition as against the spirit of FOSS. personally, i think that needs to change.
eduction 1y ago
> But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made. What is your definition of “giving back?” To me that means open sourcing your changes, which as you note is what the license requires.
- skrebbel 1y ago
  Yeah sorry, stupid choice of words given the subject. I meant paying them for the privilege somehow, which has been Redis (the company)'s goal this whole time. GP suggests OSL3 solves this and I'm trying to figure out how.
  - eduction 1y ago
    Oh I see. IANAL but if the plan with agpl is to sell commercial versions for people who don’t want to worry about FOSS licensing/infection then it may be a great license for that precisely because of the lack of clarity. You can do similar with OSL - “pay us to get it under a different license where you can make a closed derivative work” - but OSL clearly allows linking (according to its author) without the mere linking requiring opening the thing that links it so it may be strictly worse for Redis. I was merely saying OSL is better than agpl as a license (imo). It’s very clear. But lack of clarity can have strategic value.

em-bee 1y ago

maybe if you are a lawyer, and if you are trying to get around the license somehow, or of you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging, but as a FOSS user and developer, it is pretty straightforward: the software runs on a server, you connect to it, you get access to the source that is running on the server. if you believe in the spirit of Free Software then there is no question what you should do. if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that. also, consider that the AGPL is trying to be compatible to the GPL. that forces it to be more complicated. the OSL doesn't have that problem, and the OSL is also not compatible with the GPL, which is only ok if you don't want to integrate any other GPL software. although i suppose since the GPL doesn't require distribution on network access, this may not be an issue. but i don't know, i am not a lawyer. and so to be sure, i'll prefer the AGPL.

eduction 1y ago
> if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that. Kyle’s point is pretty clear: it’s really hard to tell what agpl actually requires. So it’s a bad, unclear license whatever your position is - whether you think your code should virally make everything that links it open source, or if you expressly don’t want that and only want the library itself network copyleft. What does agpl actually require? Even lawyers are stumped.
- em-bee 1y ago
  but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details. the details only matter for those who are not into FOSS and are forced to comply with the license without having the desire to do so. one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception. so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.