@jwildeboer I was a little confused by his comment, because I didn't think mithro (Tim Ansel) worked for google. So I tracked down the issue in question. I found his later explanation even more disturbing and disappointing. Don't license AGPL because we *might* want to try to get funding from Google in the future. Wow...
@cstanhope I had the link to the issue in my previous tweet. https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/105193363110691512
@jwildeboer Sorry I missed that! We had the same reaction. smh
(I had assumed you deliberately didn't link to it, so I did the same.)
@jwildeboer It’s worth noting that Debian had a discussion about accepting AGPL software in their main repository and that they didn’t see any issue at the time. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=17;bug=495721
@jwildeboer As of today, many programs installed on my computer right now are using this license so it seems like it’s still all good!
@robby Of course, practically all software is used as a service these days. And if it isn't now, it will be. ;)
@wizzwizz4 @jwildeboer @juliank “The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.” IANAL but to me this means the combined work must follow the requirements of the AGPLv3
@robby That's technically not correct. It says:
The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
You also can't create a GPL derivative work licensed under AGPL without messing around with what's the original code and what's the AGPL'd code – you can't say “the whole code is licensed under AGPL”, but only that “it is combined GPL / AGPL, and can be used under AGPL”.
@wizzwizz4 Dual licensing typically also means that every contributor must sign/agree to some kind of CLA (Contributory License Agreement), which for me is a big NoNo. Make contributions easy. Stick to one license, please. I prefer GPL but also have no problem with BSD/MIT/X11 style. I just need to know upfront.
@jwildeboer @juliank @robby No CLA necessary. If the file says “licensed under the GPLv3-or-later or AGPLv3-or-later (at your discretion)” (or whatever the standard wording is) and somebody submits a patch whilst retaining that notice, you can assume that's the (dual) license they're providing their code under.
Maybe. Depends on that being there from the beginning. If the owner decides to dual license at a later point, things get complicated. That's why I always advise to fork when a license change or switch to dual licensing happens. And only after ALL previous contributors have agreed in a provable way. This stuff is complicated. Been there, got the T-Shirt.
@clacke The wording is explicitly *not* allowing a relicensing to AGPL 3.
It allows you to add the restriction to the combination as such, but you'll still receive the covered work subject to the GPL-3, not the AGPL-3.
Which gives you the freedom to take it back out of a combined work and reintegrate it into another GPLed work.
@jwildeboer I can confirm that it's basically the default at non-floss companies to go "For a GPL you can use it if Legal says it's okay and there's no permissive alternative. For AGPL forget about it"
> Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open Source Programs Office.
@jwildeboer You know, when Google says it could cause legal problems for them I'd more blame how integrated they say their code is rather than the AGPL...
@MicroCheapFx No. AGPL was specifically created to fix the loophole in GPL when it comes to hosted services, SaaS setups.
Well worth knowing, thank you for sharing.
Wonder what would happen if the Linux kernel was licenced this way? Umm...
@jwildeboer hmm, that reminds me, I need to check the permitted OSS licenses for Intel. Though we are heavily contributors to free software, much of what we do are trade secret stuff.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name