I haven't commented on HN in a while, but this article actually pretty much complains about me, since I wrote the text in question and enabled the policy to be released.<p>So i'm just going to say:<p>1. The author claims the Google states something, then doesn't actually quote anything google stated, but instead writes their own interpretation of the words and a made up example. That's not a good start.<p>2. Having set up their own example, the author then proceeds to say it's wrong because of an appeal to authority, asserting no reasonable disagreement is possible - when not only is it possible, but large numbers of IP lawyers disagree on what the AGPL requires. It's true that someone wrote it, and there are FAQ's, but depending when and where, their opinion on what it means is not as relevant as one might think.<p>In truth, lots of people disagree over interpretation of the AGPL - many more than disagree about GPL interpretation or LGPL interpretation (which are fairly settled at this point). Searches over any legal licensing list in existence will you this.<p>When I wrote the interpretation you see here, it was the best available info at the time, guided not just by own views, but by listening to a lot of smart lawyers, counterparts at other companies, etc.<p>Even if you ignore all the lawyers and whatever as useless, the author has the huge problem that <i>There are people who make AGPL software that take the view listed in the google policy</i><p>So it's not just Google or lawyers, it's <i>software authors</i>. Not just a few, either.<p>While companies are generally happy to ignore one or two people whose interpretation is outside the norm (and just not use their software), that's much harder when there is such widespread difference in view of the AGPL.<p>3. For no particular reason at all, the author then decides to assert a tremendous amount of bad faith in interpretation of the AGPL and reasons for publishing such policies.<p>We published our policies because over the years I (and others) were repeatedly asked by counterparts at other companies, various communities, and others to understand what our policies look like, for a variety of reasons (to understand for themselves, to use as a template, etc)<p>Period.
That's the whole reason.
It even says this: <a href="https://opensource.google/docs/" rel="nofollow">https://opensource.google/docs/</a><p>The author here has decided that's clearly all lies or deliberate misinformation, without even bothering to even ask anybody.