I've always wondered about whether the AGPL is a good fit for software that isn't accessed over the network. At first glance this would appear to offer the exact same rights as the GPL in this scenario, however you then have the protection of the AGPL if the software was ever incorporated into a networked program.<p>Does anyone have any experience with this? Are there pitfalls to using the AGPL for a regular program that I'm not thinking of?
Google does not allow usage of AGPL code.<p><a href="https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/</a>
I was thinking that ALGPL is a worthy addition. We need a licence that still applies to use in microservices and other code that is not shared with the user but still shows consideration for investment into proprietary code and only limits its provisions to the code under the given license. I would gladly license my work under ALGPL if it existed.
I have some questions about AGPL if anyone has answers:<p>1. If you have code, let's say FooProject, that's AGPL. In which of these scenarios is someone in the wrong for using it?<p>1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL.<p>1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet, but does not open source FacebookInternal with AGPL.<p>1c. Microsoft uses FooProject in a special version of Office, which is only distributed via BluRay and does not open source Office under AGPL.<p>1d. Netflix uses FooProject in AlienNetflixViewer, which is used over the internet, and makes some modifications to FooProject as its used in AlienNetflixViewer. They open source ModifiedFooProject under AGPL, but not AlienNetflixViewer<p>2. If you have FooProject, and you have 3 libarires, LibraryOne, LibraryTwo, and LibraryThree included in FooProject that are under the MIT license, can someone take Library[Number] and use it under the MIT license? Let's assume these are not actually separate projects, and for all intents and purposes it's the same project as FooProject, but for whatever reason the folders associated with each library has its own license.<p>3. Assuming someone uses an AGPL project and does not follow the license, what's the penalty? What if its so incorporated into its project its effectively impossible to remove?<p>4. How do you enforce someone using the AGPL?<p>5. If you go to a public facing site and suspect that they're using an AGPL project (perhaps because of the nature of the API calls or the client facing JavaScript) can you demand to see the full source?
We considered AGPL but recently adopted the BSL:<p><a href="https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/</a><p>Lots of open source people don't like it as it is not technically an OSI open source license. I'm not in love with it either, but it was the best solution available <i>for now</i>. We are exploring other alternatives.<p>The problem with the AGPL is unfortunately that it has the letters G, P, and L in it.<p>You'd be shocked to learn just how many potential customers have no-GPL policies or are otherwise just allergic to the GPL. There is a lot of FUD and misconceptions out there. Lots of companies won't allow anything GPL to be used internally in connection with any code or product. (Linux seems to get grandfathered in, but they don't like GPL for anything new.)<p>Most of this is fallout from Microsoft's 1990s - early 2000s anti-GPL FUD campaign, and the memes from that are still circulating. Lots of people think GPL code is "viral" in the sense that if it touches your code in any way whatsoever it somehow magically GPLs it. MS spent millions to muddy the waters around the GPL.<p>Yes it's FUD and it's typically rooted in misconceptions, but it's very common and from a sales point of view it's a waste of time to try to fight it. It's hard enough to educate customers about your product without also having to educate them about the license.<p>If it weren't for this issue we'd consider AGPL, but it's really not perfect.<p>What we really need is a modern license that addresses the "SaaSification" phenomenon, which AGPL does partly but not fully, while at the same time being simple to understand and compatible with as much of the rest of the OSS ecosystem as possible. AGPL is more complicated than I would prefer while also not being quite the right thing.<p>I'm starting to think we'll have to make one. If we do we will open source it for others to use.
If you're considering adopting AGPL and the reason is to prevent commercial abuse of your work:<p>Please consider adding a non-commercial use exemption, for charities and academic research. These organisations can't afford the cost of open-sourcing their entire project.
My questions are:<p>- if I allow users to use an AGPL product on my server and that AGPL licensed product connect to a commercially licensed application server or database on my intranet, will that be a problem?<p>- will it be a problem if the commercial application server connects to the AGPL licensed product to fetch data?<p>Except for these two points I now feel I'm starting to understand the AGPL, kind of.
Not common that you see a philosophy more radical than Stallman's.<p>As I understand Stallman's free software philosophy -- the GPL -- the idea is that code must respect the person running it / using it.<p>Under this philosophy, if I am communicating with you, it's not up to me what tools you use in formulating your responses. And whether those tools respect your freedom or not. So GPL only applies to those directly using the code, not others they interact with using the outputs of that code.<p>I'm wondering if the AGPL is supposed to come from a different philosophical foundation, or if it would be better understood as an economic / power-structure tool?
I don’t think that copyright enforcement should be used against me based on whether or not I run a webserver alongside a modified application or not.<p>I’m all on board with copyleft in general, but the “service provider loophole” just seems like anti-business sentiment. People using modified free software to provide services useful enough to pay for is a <i>good thing</i>.<p>Forcing someone to publish their own changes simply because they run a business always seems to me like violent coercion, using copyright as a stick; much moreso than forcing someone to release source for object code they are already releasing.<p>Free software is a tool. Using that tool to create a successful business isn’t cheating anyone out of anything.<p>The software is absolutely not free as in freedom if I have one set of rights with the ethernet cable unplugged and a different set of rights with the ethernet cable connected.<p>Stop the service provider hate and avoid the AGPL and AGPL software.