6 ms·

From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modif

From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.

dingnuts 3y ago
It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. That means if, for instance, I wanted to modify Synapse to satisfy my users, for instance a bespoke authentication backend, I would be FORCED to release and distribute that change. This is NOT the way the GPL works, because the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor. The GPL only forces you to make your source code available if you plan to distribute it. The AGPL makes that requirement for even USING server software. It is not the same, at ALL! And it's right there in what you quoted -- what part don't you understand about "must make available for download the source code"?
- FireInsight 3y ago
  Oh, so modifying and releasing source code automatically makes you sign the CLA and contributes those changes back to the parent project? I'm not seeing how forcing modifications to libre software be published as libre software is a bad thing.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  It's GPL3 with a server technicality loophole closed. If you think that's intolerable, I think it just did it's job in protecting the authors and everyone else from you.
- callahad 3y ago
  > the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor I think you're missing a crucial nuance here. You have to make your change available under the AGPL. So the parent corp cannot use your modifications in proprietary offerings unless you separately and voluntarily sign a licensing agreement. This grants you power over the parent corp: if they want your changes, they either need to keep them equivalently open, or they need to come to an agreement with you.
- grey_earthling 3y ago
  > It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. It doesn't. It says if you modify the code and make the modified binary available as a service, then you must share the modified code with users of the service. You're not obliged to let the parent corporation use your service, so you're not obliged to give them its source code.
  - callahad 3y ago
    I almost went there myself in my response, but I don't think that's the strongest argument since any of your users could request the source and then hand it over to the parent corporation, albeit only under the terms of the AGPL.
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      Yeah but then you have non CLA-ed code in the original codebase which in the context of an AGPL+CLA project, now it's just AGPL and their upstream has to be maintained separate from their proprietary offering. So in that sense, it's no different than if the maintainers was just a collection of open source contributors rather than a corporation. They can integrate your changes as long as they comply with the license but they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well.
      - bruce511 3y ago
        You are completely correct, but I think it's worth clarifying one part. >> they can't meaningfully profit off of them To be clear that can absolutely profit off the code, as long as they do do under the same license. ("Meaningful" being in the eye of the beholder.) Implying that you can't "meaningfully profit" from an AGPL license is not technically true (although, of course, finding examples that do is tricky.)
        CuriousCosmic 3y ago
        Yeah I intended that note as one unit like below. > they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well i.e. They can't do anything with your contributions that any random user or contributor would be able to do under the rights of the license.

dingnuts 3y ago

It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. That means if, for instance, I wanted to modify Synapse to satisfy my users, for instance a bespoke authentication backend, I would be FORCED to release and distribute that change. This is NOT the way the GPL works, because the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor. The GPL only forces you to make your source code available if you plan to distribute it. The AGPL makes that requirement for even USING server software. It is not the same, at ALL! And it's right there in what you quoted -- what part don't you understand about "must make available for download the source code"?

FireInsight 3y ago
Oh, so modifying and releasing source code automatically makes you sign the CLA and contributes those changes back to the parent project? I'm not seeing how forcing modifications to libre software be published as libre software is a bad thing.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
It's GPL3 with a server technicality loophole closed. If you think that's intolerable, I think it just did it's job in protecting the authors and everyone else from you.
callahad 3y ago
> the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor I think you're missing a crucial nuance here. You have to make your change available under the AGPL. So the parent corp cannot use your modifications in proprietary offerings unless you separately and voluntarily sign a licensing agreement. This grants you power over the parent corp: if they want your changes, they either need to keep them equivalently open, or they need to come to an agreement with you.
grey_earthling 3y ago
> It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. It doesn't. It says if you modify the code and make the modified binary available as a service, then you must share the modified code with users of the service. You're not obliged to let the parent corporation use your service, so you're not obliged to give them its source code.
- callahad 3y ago
  I almost went there myself in my response, but I don't think that's the strongest argument since any of your users could request the source and then hand it over to the parent corporation, albeit only under the terms of the AGPL.
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    Yeah but then you have non CLA-ed code in the original codebase which in the context of an AGPL+CLA project, now it's just AGPL and their upstream has to be maintained separate from their proprietary offering. So in that sense, it's no different than if the maintainers was just a collection of open source contributors rather than a corporation. They can integrate your changes as long as they comply with the license but they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      You are completely correct, but I think it's worth clarifying one part. >> they can't meaningfully profit off of them To be clear that can absolutely profit off the code, as long as they do do under the same license. ("Meaningful" being in the eye of the beholder.) Implying that you can't "meaningfully profit" from an AGPL license is not technically true (although, of course, finding examples that do is tricky.)
      - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
        Yeah I intended that note as one unit like below. > they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well i.e. They can't do anything with your contributions that any random user or contributor would be able to do under the rights of the license.