29 ms·

Co-creator here. I thought AGPL was ok as well, but Commons Clause specifically tried to address perceived deficiencies in the AGPL although I admit that it di

Co-creator here. I thought AGPL was ok as well, but Commons Clause specifically tried to address perceived deficiencies in the AGPL although I admit that it didn't really seem to catch on. I'm not super well versed in the technical details. Why would you recommend AGPL?

josephcsible 3y ago
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CommonsClause https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CommonsClause has several links explaining what's wrong with the Commons Clause. The reason the AGPLv3 is my preferred replacement is that the FAANGs are irrationally afraid of it and refuse to let it be used anywhere in the company (e.g., https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...), but it's still 100% Free Software and Open Source and so allowed to be packaged in Linux distributions that disallow proprietary software.
- andrewghull 3y ago
  Appreciate that! We'll take another look at this.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Remember (I'm sure you do) that you can relicense the code for the use of anyone who wants to pay you for it. AGPLv3 protects you, but doesn't hold you back.
- dingnuts 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    The AGPLv3 only requires you to make your modified source code available to people that you choose to give a copy of the binary to or allow to use on your computer over the network. You never have to make anything available to the original owner if you don't let them use your modified version.
  - boucher 3y ago
    I've seen a lot of takes on the GPL but this is a new one to me. As another comment points out, you only have to make changes available to others if you make the software itself available to others; either by distributing a binary or by using it to provide a web service. But this is, fundamentally, the point of "Free" software: someone who uses a piece of software should be entitled to change that software as they desire. This obviously implies that if you make your own modified software available to others, they too must be able to make their own changes.
  - SamBam 3y ago
    > That sounds like proprietary copyright wherein third parties are allowed to view, but not modify, the source code, to me. ... Except that they're literally allowed to modify the source code?
- Tyr42 3y ago
  I'd also suggesting reading some of /dev/lawyer's blog posts, though I'm cooking and can't pull up anything in particular ATM.
- whatyesaid 3y ago
  Damn, poor little Google seems really scared. I'm not sure if that info is true. You have to provide the whole source of the entire product and not just a segment of code (eg library) you forked which they do often?

josephcsible 3y ago

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CommonsClause https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CommonsClause has several links explaining what's wrong with the Commons Clause. The reason the AGPLv3 is my preferred replacement is that the FAANGs are irrationally afraid of it and refuse to let it be used anywhere in the company (e.g., https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...), but it's still 100% Free Software and Open Source and so allowed to be packaged in Linux distributions that disallow proprietary software.

andrewghull 3y ago
Appreciate that! We'll take another look at this.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Remember (I'm sure you do) that you can relicense the code for the use of anyone who wants to pay you for it. AGPLv3 protects you, but doesn't hold you back.
dingnuts 3y ago
[flagged]
- josephcsible 3y ago
  The AGPLv3 only requires you to make your modified source code available to people that you choose to give a copy of the binary to or allow to use on your computer over the network. You never have to make anything available to the original owner if you don't let them use your modified version.
- boucher 3y ago
  I've seen a lot of takes on the GPL but this is a new one to me. As another comment points out, you only have to make changes available to others if you make the software itself available to others; either by distributing a binary or by using it to provide a web service. But this is, fundamentally, the point of "Free" software: someone who uses a piece of software should be entitled to change that software as they desire. This obviously implies that if you make your own modified software available to others, they too must be able to make their own changes.
- SamBam 3y ago
  > That sounds like proprietary copyright wherein third parties are allowed to view, but not modify, the source code, to me. ... Except that they're literally allowed to modify the source code?
Tyr42 3y ago
I'd also suggesting reading some of /dev/lawyer's blog posts, though I'm cooking and can't pull up anything in particular ATM.
whatyesaid 3y ago
Damn, poor little Google seems really scared. I'm not sure if that info is true. You have to provide the whole source of the entire product and not just a segment of code (eg library) you forked which they do often?