AGPL



  • TIL about AGPL. Apparently if you use any AGPL software in your code, even on your website, you are required to provide your source.



  • @dangeRuss yeah. It's "viral", like Ebola.


  • area_pol

    @dangeRuss The common use case of AGPL is when with web-application software, when you want people to be able to host their own instances but prevent a competitor from adding things to your software and selling it as their own.
    The company often also offers a paid version with additional features which are not open-sourced.

    For example file synchronization software like Seafile or Nextcloud



  • // Licensed under the AGPL
    public static string ToString(this string str) { return str; }
    

    Ok, now all C# programs that use strings have to be open source forever.


  • SockDev

    @ben_lubar said in AGPL:

    // Licensed under the AGPL
    public static string ToString(this string str) { return str; }
    

    Ok, now all C# programs that use strings have to be open source forever.

    yeah........ see.... it doesn't work like that.

    i appreciate the try, but no.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @dangeRuss said in AGPL:

    TIL about AGPL. Apparently if you use any AGPL software in your code, even on your website, you are required to provide your source.

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.


  • SockDev

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @dangeRuss said in AGPL:

    TIL about AGPL. Apparently if you use any AGPL software in your code, even on your website, you are required to provide your source.

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.

    hmm..... but colon cancer isn't contageous...... is it?

    i think a better analogy is (if you are against the GPL)

    If GPL is Genital Crabs, AGPL is chlamydia.

    ..... which....... might be true.

    I like what the GPL is going for and all, but damn it's a hard license to work with.



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @dangeRuss said in AGPL:

    TIL about AGPL. Apparently if you use any AGPL software in your code, even on your website, you are required to provide your source.

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.

    It's right there in the name, the A stands for ass.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @accalia @hungrier

    I think Richard Stallman has an account on our boards...


  • SockDev

    huh.... the downboating is strong in this thread....

    does the one who is downboating want to talk to us about why they are downboating or do they prefer the way of the coward?



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @accalia @hungrier

    I think Richard Stallman has an account on our boards...

    I won't say who downvoted your post, but I will say GODDAMNIT.



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.

    Contrary to Cancer, you can choose not to get the GPL or AGPL: just don't copy code published with it.


  • SockDev

    @ben_lubar said in AGPL:

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @accalia @hungrier

    I think Richard Stallman has an account on our boards...

    I won't say who downvoted your post, but I will say GODDAMNIT.

    so........ fbmac not only dleetes his posts but he downboats indiscriminately?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said in AGPL:

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @accalia @hungrier

    I think Richard Stallman has an account on our boards...

    I won't say who downvoted your post, but I will say GODDAMNIT.

    That legitimately made me laugh out loud. Thanks Ben. :)


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @TimeBandit said in AGPL:

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.

    Contrary to Cancer, you can choose not to get the GPL or AGPL: just don't copy code published with it.

    Yeah, @accalia was correct. It is more like an infectious disease. Maybe ebola would be a better analogy?

    GPL infects whatever segmant of your software you use it in. AGPL can infect your entire datacenter.



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @accalia @hungrier

    I think Richard Stallman has an account on our boards...

    Probably not. NodeBB requires nonfree Javascript code for functionality, so that will successfully repel Stallman.

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    ..... which....... might be true.
    I like what the GPL is going for and all, but damn it's a hard license to work with.

    To my knowledge, working with GPL licenses pretty much means that your program is also GPL or similar anyway. It's not really meant for anyone interested in proprietary software.



  • @Sumireko

    LGPL: You can statically link to it and you aren't suddenly GPL!
    GPL: You can run it indirectly and not be GPL!
    AGPL: If you're reading this, you're probably under AGPL now.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Sumireko said in AGPL:

    To my knowledge, working with GPL licenses pretty much means that your program is also GPL or similar anyway. It's not really meant for anyone interested in proprietary software.

    Not really. The failing of the GPL in its intended purpose was that it did not account for the proliferation of web apps and the like. GPL primarily infects distributables, but software that runs in a browser was largely unaffectedinfected. AGPL also coversinfects everything that interfaces with it.



  • @Magus said in AGPL:

    @Sumireko

    LGPL: You can statically link to it and you aren't suddenly GPL!
    GPL: You can run it indirectly and not be GPL!
    AGPL: If you're reading this, you're probably under AGPL now.

    On this day, we are ALL aGPL :)


  • SockDev

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    If GPL is Genital Crabs, AGPL is chlamydia.

    So, the AGPL is an infectious disease with no clear symptoms?

    I can believe that.



  • If you use a GPL library your code doesn't become GPL. You'll just be pirating an unlicensed library. It's exactly the same thing as using a commercial library without paying.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @RaceProUK said in AGPL:

    So, the AGPL is an infectious disease with no clear symptoms?

    Oh! So it's HPV?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Yamikuronue Nah. Everyone has that. AGPL is AIDS.


  • area_pol

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    I like what the GPL is going for and all, but damn it's a hard license to work with.

    That is, as I understand it, by design.
    While it is nice that many developers altruistically produce permissive-licensed open source software, it is not the mandatory approach.

    GPL provides a nice balance between the original developer and the users:
    -> everyone can use the software and easily modify/fix it if needed
    -> developer can not retract the software nor the license

    But it protects against a 3rd party developer wrapping the software and distributing it as his own product. (well, he can distribute it, but then so can you, so its also your product).

    It seems to be a perfect choice if you are making an end-user application.
    It is counter-productive if you make a library, because the license protects you against other developers and libraries are used by other developers. Thats the point of LGPL, which initially meant Library-GPL.

    So in general, GPL style licenses express a rather clear intent: you can use the software, but not take ownership of it.

    In practice it is of course unclear and confusing to implement - but this is unavoidable if we deal with the abstract idea of ownership of publicly available information.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    If GPL is cancer, AGPL is colon cancer.

    No, colon::cancer is that::ugly::thing that::happens with::cpp::namespaces.


  • SockDev

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    In practice it is of course unclear and confusing to implement - but this is unavoidable if we deal with the abstract idea of ownership of publicly available information.

    this is why i license anything i own under CC BY or WTFPL

    that makes things so simple for those that use my stuff, and i'll let the lawyers worry about it if i accidentally get infected by GPL and someone decides to make an issue of it. at which point i'll almost certainly just go "whatever. i'll change my shit so it doesn't use your library and stop supporting the versions that use your library. and i'll probably be snarky but not actually outright rude in my commit comments about it. have a nice day."



  • @accalia said in AGPL:

    this is why i license anything i own under CC BY or WTFPL

    I'm currently using MIT. Have seriously thought about WTFPL though...


  • SockDev

    @dcon said in AGPL:

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    this is why i license anything i own under CC BY or WTFPL

    I'm currently using MIT. Have seriously thought about WTFPL though...

    i do wtfpl for "fun" projects and CC BY for stuff like @sockbot

    .... which we apparently licensed as MIT?

    uhhhh why did we do that?

    @sockdevs does any of us remember why we're MIT licensed and not CC BY?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    So in general, GPL style licenses express a rather clear intent: you can use the software, but not take ownership of it and if you do use it, we take ownership of you.



  • @masonwheeler C# can do that too.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    does any of us remember why we're MIT licensed and not CC BY?

    Because CC BY isn't for software.


  • SockDev

    @Yamikuronue said in AGPL:

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    does any of us remember why we're MIT licensed and not CC BY?

    Because CC BY isn't for software.

    ah. right. i remember that argument now.....,

    i still think CC BY is more accurate to our wishes, but...... meh. you won that one. i'll let you keep the victory. :-)



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    So in general, GPL style licenses express a rather clear intent: you can use the software, but not take ownership of it and if you do use copy it, we take ownership of you your code.

    FTFY


  • area_pol

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    this is why i license anything i own under CC BY or WTFPL

    But your intention for this software is different...

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    and if you do use it, we take ownership of you

    Only if you distribute it.
    And thats the intended point: use it however you want, but don't distribute a competing software based on it.


  • SockDev

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    But your intention for this software is different...

    is it?

    how do you think?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    this is why i license anything i own under CC BY or WTFPL

    But your intention for this software is different...

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    and if you do use it, we take ownership of you

    Only if you distribute it.
    And thats the intended point: use it however you want, but don't distribute a competing software based on it.

    And if it is AGPL, everything it interfaces with is also AGPL. It is an infectious disease.



  • @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    And if it is AGPL, everything it interfaces with is also AGPL. It is an infectious disease.

    When you see an AGPL software, you should react the same as when you see :disco: :horse:

    0_1490894676550_upload-2c421959-260b-4af1-88a1-39bde9b02b96


  • area_pol

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    But your intention for this software is different...

    is it?
    how do you think?

    I understand that with WPTFPL / CC-0, you allow any usage of the software, as opposed to GPL which is meant to prevent some types of usage.

    @Polygeekery said in AGPL:

    And if it is AGPL, everything it interfaces with is also AGPL. It is an infectious disease.

    Maybe, but I host an instance of unmodified AGPL software and as a user I don't care.
    These licenses are against other developers using this software to make their own public software. The original developer chose this license because he does not want you to do that.
    Maybe it would be nice if he allowed everyone to build their own projects on top of his software, but being nice is not mandatory.


  • SockDev

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    I understand that with WPTFPL / CC-0, you allow any usage of the software, as opposed to GPL which is meant to prevent some types of usage.

    but I don't want to prevent types of usage other than those that fail to give me credit for my work (in the case i chose MIT or CC-BY)

    i'm not sure how you thought I might?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Sumireko said in AGPL:

    To my knowledge, working with GPL licenses pretty much means that your program is also GPL or similar anyway. It's not really meant for anyone interested in proprietary software.

    Exactly. If you read the GNU Manifesto, it's clear that the purpose wasn't to get rid of proprietary software; it was to make sure there would always be free-software alternatives.


  • area_pol

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    but I don't want to prevent types of usage other than those that fail to give me credit for my work (in the case i chose MIT or CC-BY)
    i'm not sure how you thought I might?

    Your intention - expressed by your usage of WTFPL / CC-0 - is different from the intention expressed by GPL, therefore WTFPL/CC-0 is not a general replacement for GPL.


  • SockDev

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    but I don't want to prevent types of usage other than those that fail to give me credit for my work (in the case i chose MIT or CC-BY)
    i'm not sure how you thought I might?

    Your intention - expressed by your usage of WTFPL / CC-0 - is different from the intention expressed by GPL, therefore WTFPL/CC-0 is not a general replacement for GPL.

    did i argue it was?

    All i said is GPL is annoying to deal with, so i choose not to, both by not inflicting it on others who desire to use my software and trusting my opensourceness to be sufficient for what i use, and everything else is for those leeches on society known as Lawyers to fight over. if they make trouble for me i'll change my dependencies and snark at them for being assholes.

    because that's what i do to assholes.

    i snark at them.

    or piss in their shoes, that's always an option too.


  • area_pol

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    or piss in their shoes, that's always an option too.

    Write a license that lists that as a punishment for misusing the software :)



  • @Adynathos GPeeL


  • SockDev

    @Adynathos said in AGPL:

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    or piss in their shoes, that's always an option too.

    Write a license that lists that as a punishment for misusing the software :)

    hmm..... buy me a new squeaky chew bone and i'll do just that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said in AGPL:

    but I don't want to prevent types of usage other than those that fail to give me credit for my work (in the case i chose MIT or CC-BY)

    Where I have a choice, I go with BSD or CC-BY. Credit me for what I did, but that's all I really care about. I know why others choose differently, but it doesn't change my opinion about what my actual goals are.

    However… I'm currently writing GPL stuff for work, because that's what it was when I got there and what that particular group of developers are used to using. I'm not hugely happy about the license, but it's just work-for-hire; I really don't want to touch any of it in my spare time. (It continues to surprise me how little some people think about the licensing of the works that they produce, or about what they really want to get from the rest of the world.)



  • @accalia said in AGPL:

    hmm..... buy me a new squeaky chew bone and i'll do just that.

    :giggity:

    Wait...squeaky...

    Ah hell with it. :giggity: :giggity: :giggity:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dcon What are the practical differences between MIT and WTFPL?



  • @Weng said in AGPL:

    @dcon What are the practical differences between MIT and WTFPL?

    Not sure... I just wanted to be a little more polite...


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @antiquarian said in AGPL:

    @Sumireko said in AGPL:

    To my knowledge, working with GPL licenses pretty much means that your program is also GPL or similar anyway. It's not really meant for anyone interested in proprietary software.

    Exactly. If you read the GNU Manifesto, it's clear that the purpose wasn't to get rid of proprietary software; it was to make sure there would always be free-software alternatives.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.