5 ms·

> 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.

by 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.
- ezekg 1y ago
  My point is less about the AGPL license itself and more about the people who choose it. If the OSI came out and made a statement on the ambiguities in the AGPL, and cleared the FUD in such a way that all companies agreed and could reference it, I'd wager that the AGPL would over time become much, much less popular for commercial open source. But I'd wager that they won't do that, because they win when COSS wins. But if they did, we'd likely even see a move towards non-OSS licenses, ones that are clear as to their intent and rules -- rather than relying on ambiguity -- because there would no longer be an OSI-approved license that businesses could use to have their cake and eat it too. Very few COSS business/startup/w/e right now are choosing AGPL for altruistic reasons. This thread and every other COSS licensing thread here are evidence of that. Few of them care about software freedoms, or know why they chose the AGPL. They have a playbook that says AGPL lets them take advantage of the open source distribution flywheel, while largely protecting them from the risks associated with commercial open source, i.e. competition. They choose AGPL for this, not because it's the best license for users. I honestly don't get how people don't see the deception under the AGPL right now.
  - jraph 1y ago
    This point of view is new to me to be honest. Let's say I don't care about the intent of people choosing the AGPL (I do, I wish people did stuff for altruistic reasons, but the economical system in which we live makes it so we can't rely on this). You say people are choosing the AGPL because they think it lets them do effectively source-available while benefiting from open source washing. Fine. I don't like this. But the effect of this for me is that we actually get actual free software. What's so bad with this? I've reread your second text and didn't find what's actually bad with the AGPL. Now, I wish all the FUD around AGPL was cleared; the FUD is what's bad, but I don't wan't to wait for this to happen before picking the AGPL for my software.
    - ezekg 1y ago
      > What's so bad with this? It's lying. It's an open source project and a business model built on deceit. I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity above all. The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions. And these same people will relicense without a thought, too. I think we should care about these things, otherwise we repeat history over and over again.
      - jraph 1y ago
        > It's lying. I don't see how it can do this. The AGPL is a license text. It states what people can do with the licensed code. What is lying in this text? > I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity Me too > The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions That's where I don't agree: The rules are written in the license text and I see no ambiguity there. Where is the ambiguity in the AGPL text? What is not clear about it? What granted rights are we not sure about? > veiled intentions The original intent of the AGPL authors (the FSF) was clear and simple to me: ensure the end user's freedom. It was GPL, but address the SaaS situation where someone can modify networked GPL software, make users use it from the network, without having to redistribute the modification since the program runs remotely and not on the user's machine. And that intent is perfectly align with what I want for my code. Sure, people with bad intents will use the AGPL, and so what? People kill with knives, but I'll definitely keep cooking with mine. The AGPL is a tool. It doesn't, by itself, has intents, especially veiled intents. I'm not going to stop using the AGPL because someone wants to use it to trap users. This is all abstract, I'd appreciate concrete examples where: - people have done that, without a CLA (because yeah, I'm convinced AGPL+CLA can be bad). - the AGPL doesn't work well for someone using it with the original intent in which the AGPL was written.
lexicality 1y ago
The AGPL is supposed to increase user freedom, not the legal department's freedom. The FSF have never cared even slightly about corporations being happy. Who cares if Google can't enrich themselves further? The point is to protect the users who are free to fork / host the software themselves.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  I think one of the big problems is that there are different definitions of freedom, and not everyone agrees. freedom TO vs freedom FROM

by 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.

ezekg 1y ago
My point is less about the AGPL license itself and more about the people who choose it. If the OSI came out and made a statement on the ambiguities in the AGPL, and cleared the FUD in such a way that all companies agreed and could reference it, I'd wager that the AGPL would over time become much, much less popular for commercial open source. But I'd wager that they won't do that, because they win when COSS wins. But if they did, we'd likely even see a move towards non-OSS licenses, ones that are clear as to their intent and rules -- rather than relying on ambiguity -- because there would no longer be an OSI-approved license that businesses could use to have their cake and eat it too. Very few COSS business/startup/w/e right now are choosing AGPL for altruistic reasons. This thread and every other COSS licensing thread here are evidence of that. Few of them care about software freedoms, or know why they chose the AGPL. They have a playbook that says AGPL lets them take advantage of the open source distribution flywheel, while largely protecting them from the risks associated with commercial open source, i.e. competition. They choose AGPL for this, not because it's the best license for users. I honestly don't get how people don't see the deception under the AGPL right now.
- jraph 1y ago
  This point of view is new to me to be honest. Let's say I don't care about the intent of people choosing the AGPL (I do, I wish people did stuff for altruistic reasons, but the economical system in which we live makes it so we can't rely on this). You say people are choosing the AGPL because they think it lets them do effectively source-available while benefiting from open source washing. Fine. I don't like this. But the effect of this for me is that we actually get actual free software. What's so bad with this? I've reread your second text and didn't find what's actually bad with the AGPL. Now, I wish all the FUD around AGPL was cleared; the FUD is what's bad, but I don't wan't to wait for this to happen before picking the AGPL for my software.
  - ezekg 1y ago
    > What's so bad with this? It's lying. It's an open source project and a business model built on deceit. I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity above all. The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions. And these same people will relicense without a thought, too. I think we should care about these things, otherwise we repeat history over and over again.
    - jraph 1y ago
      > It's lying. I don't see how it can do this. The AGPL is a license text. It states what people can do with the licensed code. What is lying in this text? > I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity Me too > The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions That's where I don't agree: The rules are written in the license text and I see no ambiguity there. Where is the ambiguity in the AGPL text? What is not clear about it? What granted rights are we not sure about? > veiled intentions The original intent of the AGPL authors (the FSF) was clear and simple to me: ensure the end user's freedom. It was GPL, but address the SaaS situation where someone can modify networked GPL software, make users use it from the network, without having to redistribute the modification since the program runs remotely and not on the user's machine. And that intent is perfectly align with what I want for my code. Sure, people with bad intents will use the AGPL, and so what? People kill with knives, but I'll definitely keep cooking with mine. The AGPL is a tool. It doesn't, by itself, has intents, especially veiled intents. I'm not going to stop using the AGPL because someone wants to use it to trap users. This is all abstract, I'd appreciate concrete examples where: - people have done that, without a CLA (because yeah, I'm convinced AGPL+CLA can be bad). - the AGPL doesn't work well for someone using it with the original intent in which the AGPL was written.

lexicality 1y ago

The AGPL is supposed to increase user freedom, not the legal department's freedom. The FSF have never cared even slightly about corporations being happy. Who cares if Google can't enrich themselves further? The point is to protect the users who are free to fork / host the software themselves.

ranger_danger 1y ago
I think one of the big problems is that there are different definitions of freedom, and not everyone agrees. freedom TO vs freedom FROM