3 ms·

The open source initiative was initially about hiding the political and philosophical aspects behind the free software movement (that's the second part of your

by jraph 1y ago

The open source initiative was initially about hiding the political and philosophical aspects behind the free software movement (that's the second part of your (1)). (hence the "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" essay [1]). With some benefit of the doubt, one could imagine that it was a well-meaning move to make companies do free software so we could all enjoy the freedom it gives, without them feeling they are doing dirty politics. This hasn't worked out: programs targeting end users are still proprietary for the most part. I'm not sure what's bad about 2. What's quite bad however IMHO is the push to use permissive licenses and the anti (A)GPL FUD that these big tech companies spread. Of course it is very convenient to them that every library under the sun is under MIT or BSD, so they can built proprietary software more efficiently. Note: the OSI recognizes the AGPL as an open source license so at least the set of "big tech approved licenses" is not the same set as the OSI approved licenses. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

sarchertech 1y ago
Many “big” companies would rather not bother with GPL, but the biggest tech companies don’t care when it comes to repackaging and reselling it as a service. AGPL hasn’t been thoroughly tested in the courts, so it’s unclear how much protection it offers. It’s not beyond someone like Amazon to setup a new company just firewall off AGPL software.
- jraph 1y ago
  > but the biggest tech companies don’t care when it comes to repackaging and reselling it as a service. If I'm not mistaken, Apple would rather avoid touching anything GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. They are among the biggest tech companies in my mind. Anybody seems fine with GPLv2 though. But GPL is less convenient than permissive licenses. Of course, you can still indeed build services with GPL software without redistributing the modifications, which is the point of the AGPL. > It’s not beyond someone like Amazon to setup a new company just firewall off AGPL software. I suppose so. However, this would work as intended: the Amazon firewall company would need to redistribute the improvements. Also, do you have examples of this happening? (not arguing, actually genuinely curious)
  - Qwuke 1y ago
    Wrt to the legal concerns with AGPL, they're not actually that it wouldn't provide any protection, but rather that it might offer the originally distributing entity too much power: legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available. Basically, a ""contagious"" or copyleft license as GPLv3 intended, but even more viral than intended in the AGPL variant since it extends well beyond the source software. I have not seen any lawyer concerned with how Amazon would be able to bypass its protections, *because they're otherwise the same as GPLv3 and have already been tested.* I think this poster created the legal theory themselves because they were aware of other legal concerns with the AGPL affecting the above scenario. I've read a lot of legalblogging about AGPL, and none bring up this as even a remote possibility, because unless you think GPLv3 case law is somehow irrelevant then you don't think AGPL will be simply bypassed. One last thing: I'm surprised the poster was concerned about AGPL being untested, despite it using GPLv3, and not that FSL has only existed for 2 years and has 0 case law surrounding.
    - jraph 1y ago
      > legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available If I understand correctly what you say, this is one of the main concerns with the SSPL because of the following [1]: > The SSPL is based on the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a "service" must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all "management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available", under the SSPL. I'm not familiar with this concern for the AGPL itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
      - Qwuke 1y ago
        Yes, that's the MongoDB variant which codifies it directly, and SF Conservancy and other legal entities promotion FOSS licenses states that the network stack contagion concern does not actually apply for the AGPL. But because AGPL doesn’t dig into the definition of "access", simply defining it as “users interacting with it remotely through a computer network”, nor define clear boundaries for how the "contagious" part of GPLv3 interacts with the rest of the network stack of this clause, it has meant that some lawyers think that a court may overly broadly interpret the definition. So far this contagion concern hasn't actually played out, and big corporations/hyperscalers are often using AGPL software somewhere in their stack if they're using common Linux distros - and nothing thus far has been compelled to be open sourced that isn't AGPL software. This might be insightful about the concerns as well as why lawyers still think it's straightforward: https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/agpl-license-is-a-non-starter-for-most-companies https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/agpl-license-is-a-non-... https://discuss.logseq.com/t/on-the-agpl-license-and-the-idea-to-move-away-from-it/14716 https://discuss.logseq.com/t/on-the-agpl-license-and-the-ide... https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL (not a lawyer): https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

by jraph 1y ago

sarchertech 1y ago

Many “big” companies would rather not bother with GPL, but the biggest tech companies don’t care when it comes to repackaging and reselling it as a service. AGPL hasn’t been thoroughly tested in the courts, so it’s unclear how much protection it offers. It’s not beyond someone like Amazon to setup a new company just firewall off AGPL software.

jraph 1y ago
> but the biggest tech companies don’t care when it comes to repackaging and reselling it as a service. If I'm not mistaken, Apple would rather avoid touching anything GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. They are among the biggest tech companies in my mind. Anybody seems fine with GPLv2 though. But GPL is less convenient than permissive licenses. Of course, you can still indeed build services with GPL software without redistributing the modifications, which is the point of the AGPL. > It’s not beyond someone like Amazon to setup a new company just firewall off AGPL software. I suppose so. However, this would work as intended: the Amazon firewall company would need to redistribute the improvements. Also, do you have examples of this happening? (not arguing, actually genuinely curious)
- Qwuke 1y ago
  Wrt to the legal concerns with AGPL, they're not actually that it wouldn't provide any protection, but rather that it might offer the originally distributing entity too much power: legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available. Basically, a ""contagious"" or copyleft license as GPLv3 intended, but even more viral than intended in the AGPL variant since it extends well beyond the source software. I have not seen any lawyer concerned with how Amazon would be able to bypass its protections, *because they're otherwise the same as GPLv3 and have already been tested.* I think this poster created the legal theory themselves because they were aware of other legal concerns with the AGPL affecting the above scenario. I've read a lot of legalblogging about AGPL, and none bring up this as even a remote possibility, because unless you think GPLv3 case law is somehow irrelevant then you don't think AGPL will be simply bypassed. One last thing: I'm surprised the poster was concerned about AGPL being untested, despite it using GPLv3, and not that FSL has only existed for 2 years and has 0 case law surrounding.
  - jraph 1y ago
    > legal power to declare all software used in the stack to produce a network request MUST be made source available If I understand correctly what you say, this is one of the main concerns with the SSPL because of the following [1]: > The SSPL is based on the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a "service" must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all "management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available", under the SSPL. I'm not familiar with this concern for the AGPL itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
    - Qwuke 1y ago
      Yes, that's the MongoDB variant which codifies it directly, and SF Conservancy and other legal entities promotion FOSS licenses states that the network stack contagion concern does not actually apply for the AGPL. But because AGPL doesn’t dig into the definition of "access", simply defining it as “users interacting with it remotely through a computer network”, nor define clear boundaries for how the "contagious" part of GPLv3 interacts with the rest of the network stack of this clause, it has meant that some lawyers think that a court may overly broadly interpret the definition. So far this contagion concern hasn't actually played out, and big corporations/hyperscalers are often using AGPL software somewhere in their stack if they're using common Linux distros - and nothing thus far has been compelled to be open sourced that isn't AGPL software. This might be insightful about the concerns as well as why lawyers still think it's straightforward: https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/agpl-license-is-a-non-starter-for-most-companies https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/agpl-license-is-a-non-... https://discuss.logseq.com/t/on-the-agpl-license-and-the-idea-to-move-away-from-it/14716 https://discuss.logseq.com/t/on-the-agpl-license-and-the-ide... https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL (not a lawyer): https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html