5 ms·

Why AGPL rather than a more liberal license like BSD or MIT? Edit: Just to clarify why I'm asking this, the project looks very interesting and I suppose the ch

Why AGPL rather than a more liberal license like BSD or MIT? Edit: Just to clarify why I'm asking this, the project looks very interesting and I suppose the choice of AGPL wasn't made lightly, as it might slow down adoption by commercial organizations, so I'm interested in the reasoning behind this choice.

HerraBRE 13y ago
This is something we have debated extensively. Our main goal is to improve privacy and security on-line - giving cloud providers yet another free tool with which to build proprietary services and lock in more users and their data feels like it would be counterproductive. However, we are open to discussing, and if a significant fraction of our backers would prefer a more liberal license we will probably switch.
- alecco 13y ago
  Please stay AGPL. It's the right choice for these times. BTW, beware of code ownership of pull requests from corporations.
  - pixelcort 13y ago
    Regarding Pull Requests, this is quite important if and when you want to change licenses, or dual license. Make sure you have on file release forms for every copyright holder who submits code that grant you permission to relicense later on. For one line bug fixes it can be a pain, but it's worth it. One problem with this though is that it places an unfair advantage with the current maintainer. A fork of the project wouldn't inherit the relicensing permissions from all the contributors.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Ugh, why? You're just discouraging people from contributing by forcing them to accept that their code might be used in a matter they don't approve of in the future.
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
        Because it prevents a choice of more liberal licensing later. Ogre3D was able to successfully transition from LGPL to MID/BSD because of contributor agreements. The Apache Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation, and others all require contributor agreements for very good reasons. If your projects starts out with very liberal licensing, it's not necessary strictly speaking (unless you're concerned about patents). But that's the tradeoff.
        icebraining 13y ago
        Yeah, but the Apache Foundation already has a permissive license, and nobody expects the FSF to re-license a project, except maybe to a new version of the same. By choosing the (A)GPL but forcing contributors to grant relicensing rights, you've excluded both those who consider copyleft licenses non-free, and those who consider copyleft licensing an important requirement.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Did you miss the part where I mentioned patent agreements which is another good reason why Contributor Agreements are important? And while the Apache Foundation already has a "permissive license" it's not quite as permissive as BSD / etc. And if the Apache Foundation wants to relicense, to say, a future version of their license, they're still going to potentially need that contributor agreement. Again, as I said before, there are tradeoffs.
        nhaehnle 13y ago
        It might also discourage contributors who don't want a transition to a different license. After all, contributor agreements also give the power to go closed source later on.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Like I said, tradeoffs. LLVM for example doesn't require copyright assignment, but does require a contributor agreement for patent purposes for significant contributions. Contributor agreements are a necessary mechanism to protect the project and ensure its future when dealing with patents or preparing for the potential of relicensing.
alecco 13y ago
In an ideal world BSD/MIT would be the best choice. But in the current startup world several aynrandian douchebags would take it and make web services or paid apps. Put a lot of money on viral marketing. Pester them with feature requests. And never, ever contribute back to the community or acknowledge it helped their business. I know a famous BSD developer who switched to *GPL because of this. Also, search for tptacek's explanation. It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee. Aren't the reasons you outline in your comment exactly (a subset of) the reasons that Stallman foresaw?
  - alecco 13y ago
    >> Also, search for tptacek's explanation. It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee. I was referring to tptaceck's reasons in the previous sentence you missed to quote.
- nhangen 13y ago
  what does Ayn Rand have to do with any of this?
  - alecco 13y ago
    Sociopaths rationalizing themselves as titans of some kind. Economic superheros who shouldn't be bound to basic tit-for-tat rules. Rules even the most primitive cultures follow.

HerraBRE 13y ago

This is something we have debated extensively. Our main goal is to improve privacy and security on-line - giving cloud providers yet another free tool with which to build proprietary services and lock in more users and their data feels like it would be counterproductive. However, we are open to discussing, and if a significant fraction of our backers would prefer a more liberal license we will probably switch.

alecco 13y ago
Please stay AGPL. It's the right choice for these times. BTW, beware of code ownership of pull requests from corporations.
- pixelcort 13y ago
  Regarding Pull Requests, this is quite important if and when you want to change licenses, or dual license. Make sure you have on file release forms for every copyright holder who submits code that grant you permission to relicense later on. For one line bug fixes it can be a pain, but it's worth it. One problem with this though is that it places an unfair advantage with the current maintainer. A fork of the project wouldn't inherit the relicensing permissions from all the contributors.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Ugh, why? You're just discouraging people from contributing by forcing them to accept that their code might be used in a matter they don't approve of in the future.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      Because it prevents a choice of more liberal licensing later. Ogre3D was able to successfully transition from LGPL to MID/BSD because of contributor agreements. The Apache Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation, and others all require contributor agreements for very good reasons. If your projects starts out with very liberal licensing, it's not necessary strictly speaking (unless you're concerned about patents). But that's the tradeoff.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Yeah, but the Apache Foundation already has a permissive license, and nobody expects the FSF to re-license a project, except maybe to a new version of the same. By choosing the (A)GPL but forcing contributors to grant relicensing rights, you've excluded both those who consider copyleft licenses non-free, and those who consider copyleft licensing an important requirement.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Did you miss the part where I mentioned patent agreements which is another good reason why Contributor Agreements are important? And while the Apache Foundation already has a "permissive license" it's not quite as permissive as BSD / etc. And if the Apache Foundation wants to relicense, to say, a future version of their license, they're still going to potentially need that contributor agreement. Again, as I said before, there are tradeoffs.
      - nhaehnle 13y ago
        It might also discourage contributors who don't want a transition to a different license. After all, contributor agreements also give the power to go closed source later on.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        Like I said, tradeoffs. LLVM for example doesn't require copyright assignment, but does require a contributor agreement for patent purposes for significant contributions. Contributor agreements are a necessary mechanism to protect the project and ensure its future when dealing with patents or preparing for the potential of relicensing.

alecco 13y ago

In an ideal world BSD/MIT would be the best choice. But in the current startup world several aynrandian douchebags would take it and make web services or paid apps. Put a lot of money on viral marketing. Pester them with feature requests. And never, ever contribute back to the community or acknowledge it helped their business. I know a famous BSD developer who switched to *GPL because of this. Also, search for tptacek's explanation. It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee.

nhaehnle 13y ago
It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee. Aren't the reasons you outline in your comment exactly (a subset of) the reasons that Stallman foresaw?
- alecco 13y ago
  >> Also, search for tptacek's explanation. It's counter-intuitive but this is the best license at the moment, mostly for reasons Stallman didn't forsee. I was referring to tptaceck's reasons in the previous sentence you missed to quote.
nhangen 13y ago
what does Ayn Rand have to do with any of this?
- alecco 13y ago
  Sociopaths rationalizing themselves as titans of some kind. Economic superheros who shouldn't be bound to basic tit-for-tat rules. Rules even the most primitive cultures follow.