5 ms·

I suppose this is the move if you're looking to foreclose all possible competing usages. Kudos for using correct terminology as it is no longer Open Source. Ho

I suppose this is the move if you're looking to foreclose all possible competing usages. Kudos for using correct terminology as it is no longer Open Source. However, I still believe AGPL is a better alternative in most cases and functionally prevents large enterprises from touching your code due to typical internal policies.

ezekg 1y ago
Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license. This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.
- tptacek 1y ago
  It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.
  - ezekg 1y ago
    And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
    - tptacek 1y ago
      You might take that up with the FSF, which clearly disagrees with you about its "affront".
      - arccy 1y ago
        [flagged]
        drdaeman 1y ago
        No offense meant, but what's wrong with y'all today, people? Why so many folks in the comments use words in a way that doesn't match their dictionary-intended meanings and even insist that doing otherwise is something... weird, in a bad way? Am I taking crazy pills? Save for The Church of Emacs and St. IGNUcius (obvious jokes), FSF is a political and social activism organization - not a religious one. They have foundational principles and manifestos, sure, but those aren't religious dogmas, but rather the views/desires how the society should work. Labeling FSF as religious implies that it's a cult and thus there's no talking reason to them. But they're no more religious than any other civil rights movement - the beliefs about software freedoms are no different than beliefs in any other social rights.
    - jraph 1y ago
      Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.
      - ezekg 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jraph 1y ago
        People saying wrong things about the AGPL isn't an AGPL problem, it's an issue of people saying wrong things. AGPL allows competition. Any free software license does. It's rule 0 of free software. > it's chosen to to be a non-compete. Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? The issue would be for contributors contributing for to this code under CLA seeing their contributions closed up. If that's not your thing, don't contribute to software under such CLA. I avoid it myself.
        ezekg 1y ago
        > Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? No legal department will ever allow it due to the FUD. That's the whole fucking point.
        jraph 1y ago
        Sorry, but I won't cry for corps big enough to have legal departments because they elected not to benefit from my software. They have too much power for me to worry about looking to accommodate them and their fantasy. I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here. They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them. it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL. Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      What specifically is your problem with the AGPL? I read both of your links and while there are a lot of incisive statements ("But the truth is, the AGPL isn't used to increase user freedom — it's used to restrict it, primarily through its legal ambiguities") you never spell out why you believe them.
      - torstenvl 1y ago
        It is objectively true. AGPL does not meet the definition of free software, because it restricts the use of the software when modified. The FSF pretends this isn't true by pretending that some uses are actually redistribution. However, this is too clever by half. Redistribution has a well-settled meaning, and allowing interaction over a network—unless it involves downloading the software itself—does not meet that definition.
        pabs3 1y ago
        The extra network clause triggers on modification, not redistribution.
        torstenvl 1y ago
        [flagged]
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Let's grant your definition of "redistribution" for the sake of argument. How does the license restrict your use of any modified versions of the software? Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?
        torstenvl 1y ago
        Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions. Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?
    - happymellon 1y ago
      > Author's note: the above thoughts are for how the AGPL is used in startup-land alongside a CLA — not for AGPL in general. The AGPL is a fine open source license for libraries and other infrastructure. The whole piece is about CLAs, the AGPL has absolutely nothing to do with signing over your copyrights. See Canonical for the same behaviour without the AGPL, the AGPL just requires that you allow your users to also see the code they are using, even if it is accessed over a network. > Many, like Google, have flat out banned the AGPL. Yeah, but that's because Google hates sharing what they have built on the shoulders of giants.
      - ezekg 1y ago
        The first piece is about CLAs, yes, but the second is about the AGPL abuses in COSS et al.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      Using a FOSS license and charging money for an alternative license is not abuse. And those blog posts appear to be FUD spread by a company whose own software is under proprietary licenses with source available. People are welcome to use and host AGPLed software under its own FOSS terms. If people don't want to do that, and want to pay for alternative terms, that is also a sign that the license is effective. There's no point in restricting things people don't want to do. The GPL restricts something people want to do: make proprietary software. The AGPL restricts something people want to do: host software without distributing the source at all.
    - account42 1y ago
      Gee I wonder why a proprietary software licensing company would want to disparage the AGPL.
      - ezekg 1y ago
        I've probably contributed more to open source than you [0]. I also contribute the source code of my entire company under the open source Apache 2 license via DOSP [1]. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I love open source. But I also think words and intent matters. I don't really 'win' by attacking customers/users that use the AGPL. [0]: https://keygen.sh/open-source/ https://keygen.sh/open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/license/ https://keygen.sh/license/
- happymellon 1y ago
  AGPL is exactly the spirit of open source. The license used by bear violates freedom 0. AGPL ensures that freedom 1, 2 and 3 are allowed even in hosted services scenarios. Freedom 0 the freedom to use the work Freedom 1 the freedom to study the work Freedom 2 the freedom to copy and share the work with others Freedom 3 the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works
  - levkk 1y ago
    Gotta love these are zero-indexed. Written by an engineer for engineers.
    - Skunkleton 1y ago
      Its weirdly incorrect to zero index stuff like this. The zero index refers to the start of the first thing, which is not what numbered lists are supposed to indicate.
      - F3nd0 1y ago
        If I recall correctly, there were originally three freedoms, but then a fourth one was thought of and put at the front to give it prominence, numbering it as zero as not to disturb the original numbering.
        fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        Unless you think they'd add a "Freedom -1" in the event that they add a 5th even more important freedom, then this is clearly just selected because 0 indexed lists are cute to programmers
        F3nd0 1y ago
        I think it’s most likely a combination of both: Freedom 0 was later added in the first place, and newly numbering the first place with 0 could likely only have been thought of by a programmer.
- nothrabannosir 1y ago
  the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source. When I advocate for the agpl to prevent Amazon and Google using my software, it’s not because of who those companies are, but how they use it. If Amazon tomorrow turns around and open sources everything that is a derivative work of the code they ever used, I would be more than happy, even proud if they used my software. Today any company which doesn’t deny their users the core software freedoms is already free to do so. This is not a “hack” to be maliciously compliant OSS; this is the spirit of open source. Why do you think the GPL has the virality clause in the first place? Edit: a perhaps reductive, but hopefully instructive summary: MIT/BSD guarantee freedoms of the software developers, GPL guarantees freedoms of the software users. You are free to choose which you prefer, but they're quite explicit choices, and the AGPL is absolutely squarely in the spirit of the GPL. (Now if you had said you take issue with the tivoization clause, on the other hand... :) :))
  - kiitos 1y ago
    > the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source believe it or not this is not actually true! the corporations who disallow agpl do so because their lawyers (correctly) tell them that agpl-licensed software has not been adequately tested in relevant courts of law, and that by including agpl-licensed software they are opening themselves up to unknown/unbounded legal liability/risk! "the spirit of open source" has nothing to do with anything! the more you know
    - nothrabannosir 1y ago
      I’ve heard this one before and if the agpl were two years old I’d buy it. But they had ample opportunity to craft a better license by now, so at this point it’s hard to believe that’s not just a convenient excuse. Don’t like the agpl wording, but agree with the spirit? Ok, you have the lawyers, write a better agpl that abides by the same spirit and which you trust. But: nothing. And waiting won’t change that. It may be also true, but it’s just excuse at this point. They’re not chomping at the bit to introduce networked virality of software freedom into their platforms.

ezekg 1y ago

Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license. This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.

tptacek 1y ago
It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.
- ezekg 1y ago
  And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
  - tptacek 1y ago
    You might take that up with the FSF, which clearly disagrees with you about its "affront".
    - arccy 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - drdaeman 1y ago
        No offense meant, but what's wrong with y'all today, people? Why so many folks in the comments use words in a way that doesn't match their dictionary-intended meanings and even insist that doing otherwise is something... weird, in a bad way? Am I taking crazy pills? Save for The Church of Emacs and St. IGNUcius (obvious jokes), FSF is a political and social activism organization - not a religious one. They have foundational principles and manifestos, sure, but those aren't religious dogmas, but rather the views/desires how the society should work. Labeling FSF as religious implies that it's a cult and thus there's no talking reason to them. But they're no more religious than any other civil rights movement - the beliefs about software freedoms are no different than beliefs in any other social rights.
  - jraph 1y ago
    Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.
    - ezekg 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - jraph 1y ago
        People saying wrong things about the AGPL isn't an AGPL problem, it's an issue of people saying wrong things. AGPL allows competition. Any free software license does. It's rule 0 of free software. > it's chosen to to be a non-compete. Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? The issue would be for contributors contributing for to this code under CLA seeing their contributions closed up. If that's not your thing, don't contribute to software under such CLA. I avoid it myself.
        ezekg 1y ago
        > Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? No legal department will ever allow it due to the FUD. That's the whole fucking point.
        jraph 1y ago
        Sorry, but I won't cry for corps big enough to have legal departments because they elected not to benefit from my software. They have too much power for me to worry about looking to accommodate them and their fantasy. I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here. They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them. it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL. Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    What specifically is your problem with the AGPL? I read both of your links and while there are a lot of incisive statements ("But the truth is, the AGPL isn't used to increase user freedom — it's used to restrict it, primarily through its legal ambiguities") you never spell out why you believe them.
    - torstenvl 1y ago
      It is objectively true. AGPL does not meet the definition of free software, because it restricts the use of the software when modified. The FSF pretends this isn't true by pretending that some uses are actually redistribution. However, this is too clever by half. Redistribution has a well-settled meaning, and allowing interaction over a network—unless it involves downloading the software itself—does not meet that definition.
      - pabs3 1y ago
        The extra network clause triggers on modification, not redistribution.
        torstenvl 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Let's grant your definition of "redistribution" for the sake of argument. How does the license restrict your use of any modified versions of the software? Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?
        torstenvl 1y ago
        Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions. Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?
  - happymellon 1y ago
    > Author's note: the above thoughts are for how the AGPL is used in startup-land alongside a CLA — not for AGPL in general. The AGPL is a fine open source license for libraries and other infrastructure. The whole piece is about CLAs, the AGPL has absolutely nothing to do with signing over your copyrights. See Canonical for the same behaviour without the AGPL, the AGPL just requires that you allow your users to also see the code they are using, even if it is accessed over a network. > Many, like Google, have flat out banned the AGPL. Yeah, but that's because Google hates sharing what they have built on the shoulders of giants.
    - ezekg 1y ago
      The first piece is about CLAs, yes, but the second is about the AGPL abuses in COSS et al.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    Using a FOSS license and charging money for an alternative license is not abuse. And those blog posts appear to be FUD spread by a company whose own software is under proprietary licenses with source available. People are welcome to use and host AGPLed software under its own FOSS terms. If people don't want to do that, and want to pay for alternative terms, that is also a sign that the license is effective. There's no point in restricting things people don't want to do. The GPL restricts something people want to do: make proprietary software. The AGPL restricts something people want to do: host software without distributing the source at all.
  - account42 1y ago
    Gee I wonder why a proprietary software licensing company would want to disparage the AGPL.
    - ezekg 1y ago
      I've probably contributed more to open source than you [0]. I also contribute the source code of my entire company under the open source Apache 2 license via DOSP [1]. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I love open source. But I also think words and intent matters. I don't really 'win' by attacking customers/users that use the AGPL. [0]: https://keygen.sh/open-source/ https://keygen.sh/open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/license/ https://keygen.sh/license/
happymellon 1y ago
AGPL is exactly the spirit of open source. The license used by bear violates freedom 0. AGPL ensures that freedom 1, 2 and 3 are allowed even in hosted services scenarios. Freedom 0 the freedom to use the work Freedom 1 the freedom to study the work Freedom 2 the freedom to copy and share the work with others Freedom 3 the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works
- levkk 1y ago
  Gotta love these are zero-indexed. Written by an engineer for engineers.
  - Skunkleton 1y ago
    Its weirdly incorrect to zero index stuff like this. The zero index refers to the start of the first thing, which is not what numbered lists are supposed to indicate.
    - F3nd0 1y ago
      If I recall correctly, there were originally three freedoms, but then a fourth one was thought of and put at the front to give it prominence, numbering it as zero as not to disturb the original numbering.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        Unless you think they'd add a "Freedom -1" in the event that they add a 5th even more important freedom, then this is clearly just selected because 0 indexed lists are cute to programmers
        F3nd0 1y ago
        I think it’s most likely a combination of both: Freedom 0 was later added in the first place, and newly numbering the first place with 0 could likely only have been thought of by a programmer.
nothrabannosir 1y ago
the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source. When I advocate for the agpl to prevent Amazon and Google using my software, it’s not because of who those companies are, but how they use it. If Amazon tomorrow turns around and open sources everything that is a derivative work of the code they ever used, I would be more than happy, even proud if they used my software. Today any company which doesn’t deny their users the core software freedoms is already free to do so. This is not a “hack” to be maliciously compliant OSS; this is the spirit of open source. Why do you think the GPL has the virality clause in the first place? Edit: a perhaps reductive, but hopefully instructive summary: MIT/BSD guarantee freedoms of the software developers, GPL guarantees freedoms of the software users. You are free to choose which you prefer, but they're quite explicit choices, and the AGPL is absolutely squarely in the spirit of the GPL. (Now if you had said you take issue with the tivoization clause, on the other hand... :) :))
- kiitos 1y ago
  > the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source believe it or not this is not actually true! the corporations who disallow agpl do so because their lawyers (correctly) tell them that agpl-licensed software has not been adequately tested in relevant courts of law, and that by including agpl-licensed software they are opening themselves up to unknown/unbounded legal liability/risk! "the spirit of open source" has nothing to do with anything! the more you know
  - nothrabannosir 1y ago
    I’ve heard this one before and if the agpl were two years old I’d buy it. But they had ample opportunity to craft a better license by now, so at this point it’s hard to believe that’s not just a convenient excuse. Don’t like the agpl wording, but agree with the spirit? Ok, you have the lawyers, write a better agpl that abides by the same spirit and which you trust. But: nothing. And waiting won’t change that. It may be also true, but it’s just excuse at this point. They’re not chomping at the bit to introduce networked virality of software freedom into their platforms.