Why is AGPL banned at Google?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why is AGPL banned at Google?
Why is AGPL banned at Google?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Google hasn't really ever been a fan of the GPL family. They only use GPL software when they're forced to do so, such as Android using the Linux kernel. I remember reading development inputs from an Android dev showing an active desire to avoid GPL and use permissive licenses whenever possible instead.
Why is android using the linux kernel instead of BSD?
Because Andy Rubin wanted so, basically.
And Linux was receiving a great attention with big players like Nokia investing on it for mobile.
Because BSD is pure garbage.
It's almost as big corporations want you to use cuck licenses so you can write their proprietary software for them for free.
They are using MIT + troony. This prevents chuds from using their code.
Always hilarious when you see redditors conceding how they find stonetoss (an obvious anon) geniunely hilarious and powerful and how great he is at what he does
MIT + "Trans Rights Are Human Rights" is the perfect leftist response to + N*GGER.
The best license of all is the +HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES license
Because AGPL is the only truly free license that will prevent corporate interests from stealing your open spruce work and making billions off it without contributing anything back.
This
No company likes gpl or agpl. It makes hiding their code and locking people in harder. Apple at least used to have decade old terminal utils because of that.
>Apple at least used to have decade old terminal utils because of that.
they still do. the default shell is now zsh, but bash will forever be stuck on 3.2 from fricking 2006
this is the same company that used to happily ship their operating system with a full version of gnu emacs by default
Emacs was shipped because of NeXT influence. All of the developers at NeXT used it, to the point where many of the basic Emacs keybinds are recognized in Cocoa programs. The NeXTies all left Apple by around 2009-2010 however. Unsurprisingly, Emacs stopped being shipped with the OS in 2019. They're also threatening to kill off Tcl, Perl, and Ruby. They removed php recently (lmao).
>but bash will forever be stuck on 3.2 from fricking 2006
Good.
>decade old
stuffit is over 20 years old now
>stuffit
Who?
third post best post
SSPL is even better, right? Right?
moron.
We should email rms to ask his opinion on the SSPL.
does he even respond to emails anymore?
I thought responding to emails was his only real job anymore.
I only emailed RMS once, about 5 years ago, asking him about open hardware, and he effectively said it's irrelevant (to his interests). What he actually said is along the lines that the FSF deals with software and that they're two different things. Useless response.
For all the praise Richard Stallman gets, Bruce Perens was a visionary when he started the activism for open hardware in fricking 1997. Sadly, it didn't get too much success.
It's not so much that it didn't get success, it's that x86 is the dominant ISA for the majority of computing, and not only is it proprietary, but duopolized by megacorps.
Now however we have RISC-V so there's a *chance* open hardware can be made at all, regardless of whether the manufacturers shall actually implement open hardware.
?
>open spruce work
made me kek
This.
And the fact that powerful companies like google with large legal teams are staying away from the AGPL seems to imply that strong copyleft ACTUALLY WORKS (otherwise they'd just violate the license and tell the FSF to kiss their ass).
Please look up what EULA stands for and think for a second why that has nothing to do with source code.
>otherwise they'd just violate the license and tell the FSF to kiss their ass
This is what CDProjectRed did with ffmpeg though
They did? A quick search doesn't give me any news about that, do you have a link for me?
https://securitronlinux.com/bejiitaswrath/cyberpunk-2077-source-code-has-some-interesting-stuff-in-it/
You can look up "statically linked ffmpeg" on IQfy and IQfy too, it was in the source code leak(which didn't get much attention for obvious reasons)
Anons tried to contact FSF about license violation, but nothing as you can see happened.
As always, as long as you don't share source, you can get away with it, as leaked source will be not be picked up by nu-journalists that live on donations
>but nothing as you can see happened
Slav Mafia is real. Can't sue if you're dead
>statically linked ffmpeg
Since ffmpeg is LGPL, I guess this is simply a much lesser violation than blatantly using (A)GPL code in a product, and therefore less newsworthy.
All CD Projekt Red has to do to be in compliance is switch to dynamic linking and mirror the ffmpeg sources on their site or something.
I bet the ffmpeg team has already sent them a mail requesting such.
This isn't lawsuit material unless the non-compliance persists.
>This isn't lawsuit material unless the non-compliance persists.
It's been a year
Nobody gave a shit
>nu-journalists that live on donations
kek
>will prevent corporate interests from stealing your open spruce work
so tell me how few lines of text in a file is stopping corporations from just stealing your code again?
Because it's a legal issue, they're using your software in a way that was never approved of or gave permission to do so, and many of them have clauses about including credits or even source code somewhere
Nothing will stop them from using it anyways but some companies avoid it at all costs
Tldr it's a salt circle for software israelites, helps you sleep at night
>truly free license
>prevent
Pick one.
This is some great exercise for those in this thread who are aiming for the next olympic gold in mental gymnastics
American reading comprehension
Hmmm... sweaty...
Truth Network and Gab.com saved a lot of money by using Mastodon. Tencent and Amazon were fine with MongoDB being AGPL, reason why they went with SSPL. Amazon in general is completely fine with the AGPL.
>autogynephile license
xd
because AGPL is a complicated garbage fire of a license that has never been tested in courts
some of its provisions have potentially insane consequences even in the most reasonable interpretations
and worst of all, it can be completely bypassed by a web proxy, making it useless for its intended purpose
for the above reasons companies usually ban using AGPL software, even though they are more than happy to contribute to GPL software
the legal trouble you can get into for no benefit to yourself, and least of all the software author, makes it not worth dealing with
>the legal trouble you can get into for no benefit to yourself, and least of all the software author, makes it not worth dealing with
or, in other words, what
said.
>because AGPL is a complicated garbage fire of a license
Just publish the fricking source. What's so hard about that?
>Just publish the fricking source. What's so hard about that?
This passage in the license text fricks it up for everyone:
>your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network [...] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
Easy to comply if you're making a website, but impossible in most other cases.
Let's say you make an AGPL-licensed audio server that just sends audio to a UDP socket. How is it going to offer you the source code?
Ghostscript, the PDF and PostScript interpreter, is AGPL-licensed as well. How is it going to offer you the source code when it's layered behind the print server and print drivers?
And remember that "modified version" includes the many little patches distros apply to make it fit into their release model.
>technological objections
There are always reasonable solutions (e.g. an internet radio station WILL have a website they can utilize for this).
Courts won't demand you put the source code offering in the literal audio stream. It might actually be sort-of possible via metadata, but any non-moronic judge will view a source code offering on the corresponding website as complying with the license.
>an internet radio station WILL have a website they can utilize for this
If you can only interact with the internet radio via a web browser then it's fine. If you can interact with it directly through a media player then you must offer the source through that channel as well.
Audio streams can frequently have metadata, so that could be used for it.
However, audio protocols aren't the only ones out there. What about Ghostscript? Should it embed a visible source link into every PS/PDF page it processes just because it could be used as part of a network print server?
>Courts won't demand you put the source code offering in the literal audio stream.
They will, because it's explicitly stated in the license text as such. This isn't some ill-defined term or an omission that could be resolved by the court by following the intent of the license. It's explicitly stated in the license text that the developer freely selected and the user freely accepted. It's not even against any law, so it can't be simply struck down.
>Post it in your GitHub or something?
You can post the code anywhere you want, but the offer has to be made across the same channel as the user interacts with it. Otherwise it would be useless. Amazon could post a note with a link to the source in their office somewhere and not tell the user interacting with it through a web browser.
I'm sorry to everyone emotionally invested in AGPL, but it's ineffective and stupid.
If you're using it for a web app you can comply with the license terms, but it can be defeated with a reverse proxy.
If you're using it for non-human-readable protocols then you can't even comply with the license yourself.
>AGPL is ineffective and stupid.
>so tell me how few lines of text in a file is stopping corporations from just stealing your code again?
GEE, I WONDER WHY GOOGLE FORBIDS THE USE OF AGPL3 DEPENDENCIES
Did you even read the OP?
I meant that as ineffective for its intended purpose: closing the network server loophole in GPL.
Ironically, the only way to prevent gayMAN from abusing free software is with a license that regulates use (e.g. only for non-commercial use), which would make it a non-free license by FSF and OSI standards.
>an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software
This makes a link on a website perfectly acceptable.
>What about Ghostscript?
How are you interacting with Ghostscript?
>but it can be defeated with a reverse proxy
There is no clause stating this. If you make the argument of "ahckyually you're not interacting with the software, you're interacting with the proxy" the same argument could be made about all the routers and switches between you and the target servers. Clearly, this does not apply.
I don't even know why we bother making all these arguments.
Clearly, it's all trolling and FUD from poorgays devoid of morality who neither want to pay for a commercial license nor want to contribute back by adhering to the AGPL.
You have conveniently left out the first part of that clause which says:
>your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network [...] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
All users interacting with it remotely.
Fine for web servers, fine for ftp servers that can display a banner message, fine for multimedia streaming that can utilize metadata.
Impossible to comply with for software interacting with non-human-readable protocols.
>>but it can be defeated with a reverse proxy
>There is no clause stating this.
Yes, because that’s an actual bug with the license.
You can operate a modified version and offer a link to your source.
Then you put a reverse proxy operated by a different company in front of it which will delete the link to the source.
And suddenly whatever protections the AGPL grants are effectively neutered for the user, and completely legally.
After all, the reverse proxy did not modify the software itself in any way.
What sort of protocol would be such that it can't transmit the message about license?
>What sort of protocol would be such that it can't transmit the message about license?
UDP
You can't include text in UDP? And what are you contacting through UDP that can't share the info about the license? I'm just trying to understand how this situation happens where it's impossible to comply with AGPL.
I found this AGPL project that works through UDP, how does it do it? https://github.com/andradeandrey/GoUTP
>UDP
Holy frick you are moronic
>Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.
>(if your version supports such interaction)
Not sure what to make of this exactly myself but doesn't this caveat say that you don't have to prominently offer it if such a thing is not possible?
>You have conveniently left out the first part of that clause which says:
>>your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network [...] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
>Impossible to comply with for software interacting with non-human-readable protocols.
Ironic that you left out this part
>(if your version supports such interaction)
You do not have a single clue on what you're talking about
That's the best part of the license.
Using a cuck license allows someone to take your software, modify it, and then offer it as a service.
AGPL prevents that, and that's why MEGACORPs hate it. They don't want to share their modifications because they want to bill it as some cloud service.
What sort of consequences are you talking about?
After Oracle v. Google, I honestly doubt that AGPL would hold up in court
It would either get totally gutted down, or it would get crushed by Fair Use
>it can be completely bypassed by a web proxy, making it useless for its intended purpose
Your logic is shit. If hiding it behind a web proxy resolves big tech from the legal obligations, they wouldn't ban it.
AGPL is not a free license but rather an EULA.
It would require making their server side code open source. Obviously this would expose things like how much data they collect etc.
>Read more at go/agpl
Why don't you? Your answer is likely there. Unfortunately since you haven't posted the URL to what your screenshot is of, I can't go click that link myself and spoonfeed it to you.
>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)
Womp womp
>read more
Well you didn't, did you?
Is it possible to use dual license? Free agpl and 20usd commercial use license? I rarely see a cheap commercial license like that.
Only if you're 100% copyright owner.
Yes, as long as all the copyright holders agree.
You can license your software as many times as you want under whatever terms you want, as long as you're not giving anyone "exclusive rights" or something.
AGPL + commercial is a well-known combination, things like the iText library use that.
I searched for it, here's their reasoning https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/
TL;DR the virality scares them and they don't want to open source their server stuff
>Virality
I don't have fricking source code my devices' hardware microprogram, does that mean I can't use AGPL? What a moronic license.
I'm not very well versed in this but according to this https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misunderstood-license-86fd1fe91275 the only difference between regular GPL and this is this part
>Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. […]
There's an example there and they offer this explanation too
>The point, that most people miss, is that, the AGPL is just a super-set of the GPL, which terms distribution to also be network distribution, and nothing more!
"AGPL" is very loose with the definition of "Program". It's basically "anything that interact with any way is a part of a Program".
that's not true, that's the SSPL.
Isn't "the program" in this case specifically the AGPL'd stuff
>if you modify the Program
So if you make changes to the AGPL'd stuff you got from someone. Is it interpreted differently from how GPL talks about "the program"?
>Isn't "the program" in this case specifically the AGPL'd stuff
yes
>"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License
>Is it interpreted differently from how GPL talks about "the program"
no, the gpl has the exact same definition. it applies in the same way, where it's only viral through source (i.e. linking during compilation, adding gpl'd code directly to your repo, etc.). the only change in the AGPL is that source must obtainable from a network service's web server for free if they use AGPL software, because the regular GPL can't be applied to a web service since they aren't distributing the software, only using it.
the other anon has no idea how the license works and is comparing it to the SSPL, which is viral through literally everything that interacts with the program in order to make it "usable as a service."
So, why Google doesn't use it, then?
because they don't want anything in their monorepo to end up licensed as the agpl. their code is heavily interlinked, so even linking agpl code to something that seems insignificant could end up infecting other parts of the code, which could end up in them having to release a ton of their proprietary code as AGPL, which they obviously don't want to do.
https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy
Thanks for explaining it. I wonder too why Google doesn't want to use it, but I guess they're miffed about AGPL closing the loophole and don't want to contribute back
>loophole
There is no Client-Server/SaSS loophole
The AGPL is treading dangerously close to the notion of whether or not API's themselves are copyrightable.
If courts start to use Oracle v. Google as precedence (the SCOTUS said they shouldn't but it will probably become precedent) then Fair Use will basically establish this loophole in law.
AGPL has nothing to do with Oracle v. Google.
That was about Google re-implementing existing Java API with completely original code, which is entirely sensible. Oracle was just greedy c**ts as always.
AGPL is trying to regulate software use without actually regulating software use. If a user uses your software over the network, you have to offer them the source code.
That's what the network server loophole in GPL is about. If you do not distribute GPLed software but merely host it on a networked computer, you do not need to offer source to your modifications.
The problem as
points out is that you can just contain the service in a web proxy.
What you're doing is moving goal posts, and what you really want to do is copyright the API
Using software over a network is really just using the service's WebAPIs
Unless the API's themselves are copyrightable, enforcement becomes a severe uphill battle.
The irony here is actually that Oracle is all about the AGPL (Berkeley DB is AGPL), while Google opposes it.
It really is Oracle v. Google politics.
Circumvention though web proxy, or other wrappers, will continue until we know for sure that API's are copyrightable.
There will always be another wrapper one can add to circumvent your AGPL unless the API itself can be copyrighted.
>The problem as
some of its provisions have potentially insane consequences even in the most reasonable interpretations
and worst of all, it can be completely bypassed by a web proxy, making it useless for its intended purpose
for the above reasons companies usually ban using AGPL software, even though they are more than happy to contribute to GPL software
the legal trouble you can get into for no benefit to yourself, and least of all the software author, makes it not worth dealing with points out is that you can just contain the service in a web proxy.
I don't think that is true. If I release a database under AGPL and you use it for your websight you will have to release any changes you make to the database code.
>I don't have fricking source code my devices' hardware microprogram, does that mean I can't use AGPL
it only covers the copyrighted work, microcode is irrelevant.
>it only covers the copyrighted work
>>if you modify the Program
What you two are describing is LGPL. GPL forces you to use GPL even if you don't modify anything and simply using it as dependency. AGPL goes even further and any non-optional network interactions count as "dependency" and therefore both sides of interaction MUST be AGPL-licensed. It literally profilerates via internet like a virus.
>It literally profilerates via internet like a virus.
The most based virus I have ever seen.
The "if you modify the Program" comes straight from the license though.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
Post it in your GitHub or something? This is not at all my area of expertise and it probably shows but I don't see the issue
GPL and AGPL are moronic, LGPL and MIT are based.
>*rubs hands*
I can totally understand why many CORPORATIONS hate the AGPL. That actually means it's working as intended.
What I don't understand is why some (many?) of you PEOPLE hate the AGPL.
How the frick does it personally hurt you?
Shouldn't you be glad the code you write in your own time and share with the world encourages other people to also share their code?
Because all my code are either MIT or proprietary. GPL dependencies are infecting former with their cancer and creating legal danger in latter.
You're only in legal danger because your code is restricting user freedom. Why do you want to restrict user freedom?
Simple solution: relicense everything as GPL or, better yet, AGPL. Problem fixed.
Or simply don't publish your proprietary stuff - as long as you don't publish, you aren't required to adhere to any license.
You're completely free to use any (A)GPL code on your servers without ANY consequences, and even free to use modified versions of that code - as long as you make the modifications available to your users so that they have the Freedom to alter/compile/run/host the software themselves.
Only if you're relying on a product being published but its code being non-public as a means of protecting some business model would I understand your complaint - but then you're basically behaving as a Corporation, and are exactly the kind of actor that the AGPL was designed against.
>Simple solution: let cancer grow
no thanks. I don't plan to restrict freedom of people who use my code.
>How the frick does it personally hurt you?
I don't want to be restricted in using my allegedly free software. If I'm running a piece of software on my server and someone just interacts with it thorugh a network, I don't want to get assfricked because of it.
Someone is using your software, so they should have access to the source in order to be able to enact the four essential freedoms. Just provide the source. What's so difficult about this?
No, I'm running the software, the user is merely interacting with it through a proxy.
The user is USING your software. Otherwise they would not be a USER.
If I print a piece of paper using software, is the recipient of that paper using the software?
If you design that software specifically so that users would first interact with the software through a computer system (directly or remotely) in order for the printing to occur, yes.
Because IQfy is no longer made up of tech enthusiasts anymore, they're ostracized as neets and incels. Instead we've been flooded by wagies and college morons who've had a passing interest in computers at best, here only to extract as much wealth from the gold rush as possible. It stands to reason that these same employees of gayman, the ones who actually USE and incorporate open source software into their products to save on work they were assigned to and that they were supoosed to do themselves, would so positively loathe the idea of open source developers closing the doors on this little scheme they have going on.
It literally costs them time, effort and money to have more open source projects turn to the GPL. Our true enemy is not the corporations per se, but the willing subordinates who carry out the will of their bosses, and they live amongst you in this very board and thread.
Also, GPL is not for the freedom of developers, it's for the freedom of users, under the assumption that developers are also users (hackers). Obviously this assumption rarely holds true any more.
This thread reminds me of a time when some morons decompiled proprietary game (Minecraft), added some GPL code to decompiled code (Bukkit), then DCMA'd themselves, expecting game developers go release source code of their game to prevent DMCA. Result is expected: Bukkit is dead due to self-DMCA, Minecraft's code is not released.
Google already explains it. AGPL is cancer-like. Except it's worse than cancer because it can spread remotely.
>cancer-like
Freeing users and preventing corporations from restricting user freedom is a good thing. You're giving it a negative connotation for no reason.
Funnily enough, the only actual use case for AGPL is when someone wants to release code that they don't want anyone else to use. You know what's a less cucked method of accomplishing this? A proprietary license. I'd rather use that if I don't want someone else to use my code. If Google wants to use it anyway, they can reimplement it in no time.
AGPL is basically a red stamp on the box that tells you you can't use this software unless you give away your rights to your product. It's like saying "look, I did this, isn't this cool? What no, you can't use it, I'm just showing it off teehee :^)"The number of lines of code that was "freed" by AGPL is probably 0. It's not about helping each other. This is the ultimate cuckoldry. If you want freetard communism, you can use GPL2. That license is reasonable for shit like the loonix kernel, but that's also cancerous nonetheless.
>the only actual use case for AGPL is when someone wants to release code that they don't want anyone else to use
No, you can use my code. I simply ask you to publish your improvements to the source code, just like I am publishing the source code itself and the improvements I make to it over time.
>AGPL is basically a red stamp on the box that tells you you can't use this software unless you give away your rights to your product
What? You just need to release the source to your modifications if you plan to provide a service with it. This is the exact same thing as GPLv3 has done pre-SaaSS. If you host the software as-is, no need to provide the source, because the original author already does it. If you use a modified variant internally, you already have your own modifications at hand.
So you want to tell me.what I'm allowed to do with the program while running it on own computer. That alonr is bad enough.
Also, imagine making your web stack less secure because a mentally ill freetard says "you just have to ok?" This is clearly something you should not do in 99% of cases. Muh moneys is not the only reason why virtually nobody open sources their whole web stack.
>So you want to tell me.what I'm allowed to do with the program while running it on own computer.
Why are you extrapolating words out of my statement that aren't there? You can use the software as you wish for yourself on your own computer. If you are providing a service, it is EXTREMELY clear that you want others to use your service, and are NOT running the program for yourself. If you refuse to provide to the source code to your modified service, it is EXTREMELY clear that you only seek to abuse the SaaSS loophole of the GPL, and you are irrationally angry that the AGPL has fixed this loophole.
>making your web stack less secure
Security through obscurity is not security. All modern encryption schemes are open specifications and nobody would trust closed-source cryptography algorithms. I wonder why that is.
>Muh moneys is not the only reason why virtually nobody open sources their whole web stack.
Right, the other reason is spying on your userbase without them being able to confirm it, and denying them the ability to self-host the service so you can be sure you can collect as much data as possible.
>can use the software as you wish for yourself on your own computer.
Yes, you added "for yourself." Thanks, but I'm not for anyone forcing me to reveal what my computer does in its memory for any reason really. When distributing software as a compiled binary, sure, we have licenses for that, as I mentioned, you can take part in freetard communism that way. Building another freetard communistic empire where software you use on your machine should be open source is not freedom. It's like saying "you can't think bad thoughts."
>Security through obscurity
Nobody said anything about obscurity or encryption algorithms. Use whatever algorithm you like, I'll use one but I won't tell you which one because tleven that gives away clues about the potential security holes in my system.
Try running your company's stack while you make everything open source and let us know how that goes. It's like asking to get hacked. Closed source software as a service is significantly more secure than the same software but as open source. Flushing this advantage down the drain is like because muh agpl is like the comic with the guy tripping himself over on the bike. AGPL basically mandates that you consciously make your software less secure than it could be if you simply did nothing.
>Nobody said anything about obscurity or encryption algorithms. Use whatever algorithm you like, I'll use one but I won't tell you which one because tleven that gives away clues about the potential security holes in my system.
Sounds like your security model is garbage, and quite possibly illegally exposing userdata.
It is very clear that you only seek to restrict the freedom of your users. Why do you always ignore that part?
>waaah I can't take the result of other people's hard work and claim it as my own
>waaah anyone wants to keep from from doing so is a filthy commie bastard
Entitlement much?
Producing high-quality software is costly, thus the resulting software is valuable.
The AGPL forces you to recognize that and contribute value back.
If you just want to take everyone's assets without paying, doesn't that make YOU the commie?
Obviously your entire business model depends on stealing other people's programming work and violating your customers' freedom.
The added value of your product must be near-zero if you're so afraid of the AGPL.
>stealing
It's not stealing, it's licensing.
>You can use the software as you wish for yourself on your own computer.
Freedom 0 is "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose", not "run the program as you wish by yourself on your own computer".
>waa I can't steal your code so it's bad
KYS israelite.
>The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
You are allowed to run a free piece of software as you wish. If you wish to run your software so that other users can interact with it through the network, this is acceptable.
>You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
You are allowed to modify a free piece of software and use it privately without disclosing your changes. And freedom 0 dictates that you can in fact run the software so that it is accessible through a network.
google (the israelite) fears the copyleft.
>It is very clear that you only seek to restrict the freedom of your users. Why do you always ignore that part?
The gpl is kind of silly cause it's next to impossible to prove someone used your code.
Would it be possible to like insert random snippets into the binary itself?
Or how would you go about injecting your signature into someone elses code unsuspectingly?
>it's next to impossible to prove someone used your code.
Look up court cases. Peopld DID prove that someone used their code.
To all the Viral AGPL haters in this thread:
PAY FOR A GODDAMN COMMERCIAL LICENSE OF YOUR DEPENDENCIES!
Seriously.
If you're so against releasing your own code as AGPL, but really need those 3rd party dependencies because you can't replicate the huge value they provide, then how about you RECOGNIZE THAT VALUE and ask the fricking vendor for a commercial license?
Many projects are dual-licensed already (examples: iText, MySQL), and those that aren't will likely gladly accept your money.
MySQL is dual licensed, offering commercial and GPL2, or practically LGPL, so it doesn't pozz your code. Everybody can and does use it, including Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. They can take the program and modify it to how they like it. If it was AGPL, nobody would touch it with a 10 foot pole, and it would have died and been replaced by something else instead of being adapted for a bunch of systems. Nobody in their right mind would create a site whose code they don't own.
You don't have to make your entire website open source if you use a modified AGPL database. You only need to open source your changes to the database.
Yes, and I'm not going to do that because I'd rather not expose any vulnerabilities of my system. Imagine Facebook going "hey guys, uuh, here's the code to our database, in case anyone wants to hack it easier." Requiring server side code to be open source is counterproductive.
>security by obscurity again
Cope, codelet.
>I'm gonna use MySQL on my server, which is a large OPEN SOURCE project
>and I'm gonna modify it
>but I absolutely refuse to share my modifications with my users
>because having server side code be OPEN SOURCE IS A HUGE VULNERABILITY
Is this a schizo thread?
Seems like a solid plan to me. All of those decisions correlate with ending up with a billion dollar business.
No thanks, I'll rather use freeware libraries.
>gieb free shit, because I neither want to pay in money nor contribute back to the community
Who is the real "freetard" here, israelite?
>gieb free shit, because I neither want to pay in money nor contribute back to the community
I thought freetardism was supposed to be about freedom. It looks like it's more about sucking each other's wieners.
SSPL and it's consequences have been a disaster for the AGPL
>truly free
>allow restricting freedom of others
Pick one, you selfish frick.
>jewgle shills seething so hard
Reminder that AGPLv3+Black person KILLS the globohomo
Until a yuropoor tries to be cheeky and use it but gets pwned by their nannyland's hate speech laws
Because it's the worst parts of AAPL and GPL together, duh
cute
fuchsia has its own MIT licensed kernel doesnt it
Yes.
Read more at go/agpl
What more is there to read?
Google makes changes that are malicious/vulnerable/for feds and if they used something with the agpl license they would have to publish their changes.
The gpl only requires that if they distribute it to others
agpl is a useless license
Its use is very obvious: Making the israelites seethe.
Because AutoGynePhiLia is not a fetish, bigot chud
JEWBlack person++ LICENSE AGREEMENT
By reading this source code, using it as input in any way shape or form, using any entity or body part owned or partially owned by an owning entity, the owning entity agrees to the tersm of the israeliteBlack person++ LICENSE AGREEMENT enforceable by law.
>tersm
im pretty sure it has to do with FOSS web apps or some shit that Google can't use.
they can't cuck you
For me it's AGPL+Black person
https://plusBlack person.autism.exposed/