19 ms·

AGPL is almost exactly the same as GPL except that SAAS counts as distribution. That's the entire purpose of the license — to preserve the copyleft protections

by chc 3y ago

AGPL is almost exactly the same as GPL except that SAAS counts as distribution. That's the entire purpose of the license — to preserve the copyleft protections of the GPL in a world where most software people use is hosted.

galenmarchetti 3y ago
Love this framing of the license...as Stallman said, who does that server really serve? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
ninkendo 3y ago
Except it’s not just hosting the covered work itself as SAAS that triggers a distribution, but any derived work. If you use (say) AGPL MongoDB in your SAAS bug tracker, your bug tracker now needs to be AGPL too. The virality doesn’t stop at hosting a SAAS MongoDB.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  That's probably not correct. While the AGPL is a little ambiguous, it probably does not infect other apps. That's why I created the Candid Public License (CPL): https://github.com/candiddev/cpl https://github.com/candiddev/cpl
  - ninkendo 3y ago
    Every lawyer I’ve talked to takes my interpretation. It may be overly cautious of them, but in practice, if something becomes the prevailing legal view, it de facto is the correct interpretation, at least until it is tested in court.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      I would find new lawyers, the AGPL is just the GPL with the addition that network access counts as distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agpl-license/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agp...
      - ninkendo 3y ago
        Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work. (This is why the LGPL exists, to allow for what the regular GPL restricts.) The logic of the lawyers I’ve talked to (2 different companies on multiple occasions with different lawyers) is that the same wording that causes network access to count as “distribution” in the AGPL, also causes networked API access to count as a derived work. It’s not all that crazy of an interpretation, IMO. My lawyers may suck and be overly cautious, but I’d wager this uncertainty is exactly why any sane company stays as far away as possible.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        tzs 3y ago
        > Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work. Generally a bug tracker (SAAS or not) that uses a database does not need to link to the database unless the database is SQLite.
        ninkendo 3y ago
        If the AGPL defines network access as distribution, it stands to reason that network access also counts as linking. See my other comments about a hypothetical proxy that thinly wraps mongoDB as an AGPL workaround, for why this gets hairy very quickly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37400264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37400264
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work If its not a derived work under copyright law requiring a license, a license offer can’t transform it into a derived work requiring a copyright license.
        Znafon 3y ago
    - imtringued 3y ago
      You guys will do everything and anything except read the license terms and then make up whatever lies you want, to make the AGPL look bad.
- imtringued 3y ago
  AGPL does not add any distribution clause... all distribution clauses are taken from the GPL... The AGPL adds a modification clause so that if you ever modify the code even if you do not distribute the application, you still have to share the code or at least link to the version of the source code that you use. The loophole that AGPL fixes is that there are ways to avoid distribution. This AGPL/GPL virality urban legend should have ended years ago.

by chc 3y ago

galenmarchetti 3y ago

Love this framing of the license...as Stallman said, who does that server really serve? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

ninkendo 3y ago

Except it’s not just hosting the covered work itself as SAAS that triggers a distribution, but any derived work. If you use (say) AGPL MongoDB in your SAAS bug tracker, your bug tracker now needs to be AGPL too. The virality doesn’t stop at hosting a SAAS MongoDB.

candiddevmike 3y ago
That's probably not correct. While the AGPL is a little ambiguous, it probably does not infect other apps. That's why I created the Candid Public License (CPL): https://github.com/candiddev/cpl https://github.com/candiddev/cpl
- ninkendo 3y ago
  Every lawyer I’ve talked to takes my interpretation. It may be overly cautious of them, but in practice, if something becomes the prevailing legal view, it de facto is the correct interpretation, at least until it is tested in court.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    I would find new lawyers, the AGPL is just the GPL with the addition that network access counts as distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agpl-license/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agp...
    - ninkendo 3y ago
      Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work. (This is why the LGPL exists, to allow for what the regular GPL restricts.) The logic of the lawyers I’ve talked to (2 different companies on multiple occasions with different lawyers) is that the same wording that causes network access to count as “distribution” in the AGPL, also causes networked API access to count as a derived work. It’s not all that crazy of an interpretation, IMO. My lawyers may suck and be overly cautious, but I’d wager this uncertainty is exactly why any sane company stays as far away as possible.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - tzs 3y ago
        > Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work. Generally a bug tracker (SAAS or not) that uses a database does not need to link to the database unless the database is SQLite.
        ninkendo 3y ago
        If the AGPL defines network access as distribution, it stands to reason that network access also counts as linking. See my other comments about a hypothetical proxy that thinly wraps mongoDB as an AGPL workaround, for why this gets hairy very quickly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37400264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37400264
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Recall that the GPL (non-affero) categorizes runtime linking to GPL’d binaries as a derived work If its not a derived work under copyright law requiring a license, a license offer can’t transform it into a derived work requiring a copyright license.
        Znafon 3y ago
  - imtringued 3y ago
    You guys will do everything and anything except read the license terms and then make up whatever lies you want, to make the AGPL look bad.
imtringued 3y ago
AGPL does not add any distribution clause... all distribution clauses are taken from the GPL... The AGPL adds a modification clause so that if you ever modify the code even if you do not distribute the application, you still have to share the code or at least link to the version of the source code that you use. The loophole that AGPL fixes is that there are ways to avoid distribution. This AGPL/GPL virality urban legend should have ended years ago.