3 ms·

You may think this. I may think this. But what really matters is if the lawyers for your customers think this. It may be pure FUD, but AGPL projects have a toug

by mbreese 2mo ago

You may think this. I may think this. But what really matters is if the lawyers for your customers think this. It may be pure FUD, but AGPL projects have a tough time getting adoption in companies because they would rather avoid the problem than be wrong.

waterproof 2mo ago
This is true, unfortunately. I've have had to walk away from a client because their software-illiterate lawyer didn't want me to build with copyleft dependencies. It wasn't the only red flag in this case, but frustrating nonetheless.
Tepix 2mo ago
The license is clear. Your post merely adds to the FUD.
inigyou 2mo ago
If they're customers, just sell them the license they want.
- p_l 2mo ago
  That's the real problem with AGPL, IMO - it encourages copyright assignment to a corporate entity so it can launder it through dual-licensing
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Well if it's a commercial project what did you expect? The problem there is working for free for a corporation's benefit - copyright assignment or not.
tlamponi 2mo ago
We have been running a business on exactly the opposite premise for over 20 years, and we're not really seeing that problem with the adoption of Proxmox VE or our other (AGPLv3) FLOSS projects that we provide commercial enterprise support for. Very rarely, a potential customer doing extra due diligence, and not yet used to working with FLOSS much, wonders about exactly this - which is also the main reason I bothered writing anything here, as spreading such FUD further only hurts everyone involved. In those cases, a simple reply that a) this makes no sense (more on that below) and b) an assurance in writing that none of their software running on top of, or interfacing with, any of our APIs has to be relicensed settles it. That assurance is technically useless, as it doesn't grant them anything extra, but it costs us nothing either. And the reason it makes no sense is that by your logic, any tool that can consume some (e.g. HTTP-based REST) API would have to be open-sourced the moment I get it to fetch data from my AGPLv3 service. No offense meant at all, but that would simply be bizarro world, and there is enough precedent against it. If APIs did not act as clear boundaries, AGPLv3 software would indeed spread to everything it touches or traverses, like an epidemic. If yours or your customers' lawyers claim otherwise, you/they should get ones with an actual understanding of software and IP law.

by mbreese 2mo ago

waterproof 2mo ago

This is true, unfortunately. I've have had to walk away from a client because their software-illiterate lawyer didn't want me to build with copyleft dependencies. It wasn't the only red flag in this case, but frustrating nonetheless.

Tepix 2mo ago

The license is clear. Your post merely adds to the FUD.

inigyou 2mo ago

If they're customers, just sell them the license they want.

p_l 2mo ago
That's the real problem with AGPL, IMO - it encourages copyright assignment to a corporate entity so it can launder it through dual-licensing
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Well if it's a commercial project what did you expect? The problem there is working for free for a corporation's benefit - copyright assignment or not.

tlamponi 2mo ago

We have been running a business on exactly the opposite premise for over 20 years, and we're not really seeing that problem with the adoption of Proxmox VE or our other (AGPLv3) FLOSS projects that we provide commercial enterprise support for. Very rarely, a potential customer doing extra due diligence, and not yet used to working with FLOSS much, wonders about exactly this - which is also the main reason I bothered writing anything here, as spreading such FUD further only hurts everyone involved. In those cases, a simple reply that a) this makes no sense (more on that below) and b) an assurance in writing that none of their software running on top of, or interfacing with, any of our APIs has to be relicensed settles it. That assurance is technically useless, as it doesn't grant them anything extra, but it costs us nothing either. And the reason it makes no sense is that by your logic, any tool that can consume some (e.g. HTTP-based REST) API would have to be open-sourced the moment I get it to fetch data from my AGPLv3 service. No offense meant at all, but that would simply be bizarro world, and there is enough precedent against it. If APIs did not act as clear boundaries, AGPLv3 software would indeed spread to everything it touches or traverses, like an epidemic. If yours or your customers' lawyers claim otherwise, you/they should get ones with an actual understanding of software and IP law.