5 ms·

> As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source Is

> As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.

echoangle 1y ago
AGPL doesn't really prevent Amazon from making it an AWS offering unless they want to modify the program and don't want to share the modifications.
- jdxcode 1y ago
  Another reason is that copyleft licenses are kryptonite in large organizations.
- omnicognate 1y ago
  Why would I want to stop them making it available as a network service except as a way of circumventing the copyleft by effectively distributing it without actually distributing it (which AIUI the AGPL fixes)? If you want to place restrictions on how people are allowed to use the software then A) I don't see the relevance of AWS as a special case, and B) go ahead but don't imply the "open source crowd" are being unreasonable by not considering it open source.
  - account42 1y ago
    You'd want to stop them if like in TFA you don't actually want to provide open source software but rather want to sell your software as a service with free marketing from being "open source".
- Arrowmaster 1y ago
  It doesn't in an indirect way. A friend that worked for Amazon about 5 years ago told me they were even allowed to look at AGPL codebases on the clock because the lawyers were so afraid of it.
cinericius 1y ago
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is there is a strong feeling that AGPL can be roughly ignored if a service provider provides some level of indirection (e.g. a proxy) between the user and the software. Then, the software is somehow not being accessed over a network and thus they are not required to release the source.
- barnabee 1y ago
  I have a strong feeling that speaking to a lawyer might reveal that to be untrue
  - gpm 1y ago
    I have a strong feeling you would be told "we don't know, it's never been tested in court, there's a chance you would win and a chance you would lose on that argument".
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      Yeah, but lawyers say that about just about everything
- shakna 1y ago
  Not just a level of indirection. The "substantial features" of the code need to not be directly exposed. So if you had some AGPL OCR tool you were using, you could use it, but not in a way the user sees that text. Generate audio from it and expose the sound? Probably fine.
  - gpm 1y ago
    My understanding of the theory that they're advocating is that the AGPL requires that when you modify AGPL software you modify it to provide an offer of its source. And that you can comply with that completely, run the software, and then have a proxy in front that strips that offer without violating the letter of the license. And if that theory works I think "substantial features" of the code could be directly (but for the indirection of that proxy) exposed.
ahartmetz 1y ago
I thought so, too, at first. But there's a crucial difference: With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. With the Bear license, Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me, but Stallman would disagree. He has made it clear that there should be no restrictions on use.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  > With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases. (Edited for clarity).
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    This can't possibly be true, since the Linux kernel's code is GPL and approximately every tech company uses Linux.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      By "use GPL code" I mean integrate it into a company codebase (which would require the codebase to be licensed as GPL). Edited my original comment to clarify.
      - pabs3 1y ago
        Phones contain Linux, TVs contain Linux, cars contain Linux, clouds contain Linux. It is used everywhere.
        heavyset_go 1y ago
        Companies that follow the law will release their changes to the Linux kernel when they distribute their products to users. Just using Linux is not enough to say anything built with it is a combined product in the eyes of the GPL, the license is pretty specific about what it considers a derivative work. For example, you can ship closed source apps and OS on top of Linux so long as you respect the license.
happymellon 1y ago
I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software. They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version. I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extremely permissive licensed piece of software, but competition doesn't appear to be it.
- tptacek 1y ago
  They care that other people can sell the software, not that other people can use the software, which is why the license they use makes that distinction.
  - cxr 1y ago
    This is a confusing claim. Are you saying the chosen license (<https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248d21c8c5b967de0047b0cdf4dc11c/LICENSE.md https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>) makes the software free to use to offer (e.g. gratis) "hosted or managed service[s]" so long as one does not sell the services? This is trivially confirmed not to be true. It prohibits all use of the software to provide services, not just a prohibition on selling them.
- mynameisvlad 1y ago
  > They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them. That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.

echoangle 1y ago

AGPL doesn't really prevent Amazon from making it an AWS offering unless they want to modify the program and don't want to share the modifications.

jdxcode 1y ago
Another reason is that copyleft licenses are kryptonite in large organizations.
omnicognate 1y ago
Why would I want to stop them making it available as a network service except as a way of circumventing the copyleft by effectively distributing it without actually distributing it (which AIUI the AGPL fixes)? If you want to place restrictions on how people are allowed to use the software then A) I don't see the relevance of AWS as a special case, and B) go ahead but don't imply the "open source crowd" are being unreasonable by not considering it open source.
- account42 1y ago
  You'd want to stop them if like in TFA you don't actually want to provide open source software but rather want to sell your software as a service with free marketing from being "open source".
Arrowmaster 1y ago
It doesn't in an indirect way. A friend that worked for Amazon about 5 years ago told me they were even allowed to look at AGPL codebases on the clock because the lawyers were so afraid of it.

cinericius 1y ago

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is there is a strong feeling that AGPL can be roughly ignored if a service provider provides some level of indirection (e.g. a proxy) between the user and the software. Then, the software is somehow not being accessed over a network and thus they are not required to release the source.

barnabee 1y ago
I have a strong feeling that speaking to a lawyer might reveal that to be untrue
- gpm 1y ago
  I have a strong feeling you would be told "we don't know, it's never been tested in court, there's a chance you would win and a chance you would lose on that argument".
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    Yeah, but lawyers say that about just about everything
shakna 1y ago
Not just a level of indirection. The "substantial features" of the code need to not be directly exposed. So if you had some AGPL OCR tool you were using, you could use it, but not in a way the user sees that text. Generate audio from it and expose the sound? Probably fine.
- gpm 1y ago
  My understanding of the theory that they're advocating is that the AGPL requires that when you modify AGPL software you modify it to provide an offer of its source. And that you can comply with that completely, run the software, and then have a proxy in front that strips that offer without violating the letter of the license. And if that theory works I think "substantial features" of the code could be directly (but for the indirection of that proxy) exposed.

ahartmetz 1y ago

I thought so, too, at first. But there's a crucial difference: With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. With the Bear license, Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me, but Stallman would disagree. He has made it clear that there should be no restrictions on use.

jakelazaroff 1y ago
> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases. (Edited for clarity).
- josephcsible 1y ago
  This can't possibly be true, since the Linux kernel's code is GPL and approximately every tech company uses Linux.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    By "use GPL code" I mean integrate it into a company codebase (which would require the codebase to be licensed as GPL). Edited my original comment to clarify.
    - pabs3 1y ago
      Phones contain Linux, TVs contain Linux, cars contain Linux, clouds contain Linux. It is used everywhere.
      - heavyset_go 1y ago
        Companies that follow the law will release their changes to the Linux kernel when they distribute their products to users. Just using Linux is not enough to say anything built with it is a combined product in the eyes of the GPL, the license is pretty specific about what it considers a derivative work. For example, you can ship closed source apps and OS on top of Linux so long as you respect the license.

happymellon 1y ago

I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software. They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version. I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extremely permissive licensed piece of software, but competition doesn't appear to be it.

tptacek 1y ago
They care that other people can sell the software, not that other people can use the software, which is why the license they use makes that distinction.
- cxr 1y ago
  This is a confusing claim. Are you saying the chosen license (<https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248d21c8c5b967de0047b0cdf4dc11c/LICENSE.md https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>) makes the software free to use to offer (e.g. gratis) "hosted or managed service[s]" so long as one does not sell the services? This is trivially confirmed not to be true. It prohibits all use of the software to provide services, not just a prohibition on selling them.
mynameisvlad 1y ago
> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them. That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.