8 ms·

> People using AGPL seem to be signalling that they don't appreciate other people using their software for profit. No. We use xGPL to protect our (developers)

> People using AGPL seem to be signalling that they don't appreciate other people using their software for profit. No. We use xGPL to protect our (developers) and users "right to repair". xGPL developers don't care if you are selling and making a profit from the software they created (and you maybe enhanced). What they want is that you do so by also ensuring that every user of your software also has access to the source code so that any developmental knowledge is not lost or the software doesn't become abandonware when it is no longer profitable to sell it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensing company allowing them to relicense the software with a commercial license. In this case, I don't see it protecting users' rights, but rather as a means to monetize the software.
- webmobdev 3y ago
  Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Just like every other OSS license. Sorry but this is not a reason for preferring AGPL over other licensed And of course the real reason that some developers prefer AGPL is because of the restrictions it imposes on how the software is used. Those restrictions relate to bundling with other software, which is a thing many commercial users would want to be doing. And which is a reason why the likes of MS, Oracle, Google, Amazon, etc. are unlikely to employ anybody that actively contributes to such projects. You could argue that because of the lack of commercial contributors, a lot of AGPLv3 projects are doomed to be abandonware.
- webmobdev 3y ago
  Just like every other OSS license. No, not like "every other OSS license". OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD for example, allow others to modify and "close-source" it. The license doesn't oblige them to produce or distribute the source code. xGPL however makes it mandatory for any developer to share the source code if they distribute any xGPL software that they have modified. This is why corporates don't like the xGPL - it's not because it can't be commercialized, but because of their belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. In our industry (software) this is ensured by not distributing the source of the softwares.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensing company allowing them to relicense the software with a commercial license. In this case, I don't see it protecting users' rights, but rather as a means to monetize the software.

webmobdev 3y ago
Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Just like every other OSS license. Sorry but this is not a reason for preferring AGPL over other licensed And of course the real reason that some developers prefer AGPL is because of the restrictions it imposes on how the software is used. Those restrictions relate to bundling with other software, which is a thing many commercial users would want to be doing. And which is a reason why the likes of MS, Oracle, Google, Amazon, etc. are unlikely to employ anybody that actively contributes to such projects. You could argue that because of the lack of commercial contributors, a lot of AGPLv3 projects are doomed to be abandonware.

webmobdev 3y ago
Just like every other OSS license. No, not like "every other OSS license". OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD for example, allow others to modify and "close-source" it. The license doesn't oblige them to produce or distribute the source code. xGPL however makes it mandatory for any developer to share the source code if they distribute any xGPL software that they have modified. This is why corporates don't like the xGPL - it's not because it can't be commercialized, but because of their belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. In our industry (software) this is ensured by not distributing the source of the softwares.