Comment by frognumber
2 years ago
Did you even read the case described? From the article:
"Many of them have made minor or major modifications to the tools, and next to none provide the source to those modifications"
"I wanted to promote community contributions, not to have them monetized by other people who don't even provide the source to their modifications"
If you did, I don't think you understood it any better than the AGPL (or freedom zero). AGPL text is not tangled. It's a very-well written text, if that's the license scope you want.
The case described is the exact purpose of these license.
Footnote: I've released two major tools 95% under the AGPL (with a few minor components under more libertarian licenses). It was the right tool for that job.
Yeah, I've read the text.
And it's trivial to be compliant with AGPL in this case without any effective change to the behaviour or problems caused. Yes, there would be source code link somewhere, but it can take 0.01% of the SEO spam and be still compliant.
There are plenty of examples of BSD-licensed code authors being burnt like this (including original ones from Berkeley, which were an impetus for the creation of the GPL; there were proprietary Unix systems built on top of volunteer-written code competing with the original systems).
Can you point me to any concrete examples of authors of AGPL-licensed code being burnt like this?
Circumventing the AGPL is trivial only on paper. It's hard in any human organization. In practice, parasites usually keep a long distance from the AGPL for reasons which will make sense to you if you sketch out what circumvention means in practice, what it means for org design, and the ROI there (not to mention the social signalling; not all parties are malicious).
AGPL does cause issues in various places, yes. But not in this specific case.
Quickly checking through license text (AGPLv3 as published on FSF website), following steps would have been enough:
1. Ability to view legal notice (does not have to be full, just reasonably visible)
2. A link that opens source of the code
3. AGPLv3 header in source code with notice of who and when modified it
Note that there's no need to explicitly advertise/attribute the creators in any more visible way. AGPLv3 also does not impact code that isn't derivative like all the SEO spam one's blackened heart puts on the site, especially when combined with modern "tag manager".
And we're explicitly talking about pathological cases from the start. To paraphrase oliwarner in this thread[1], we're dealing with people who are deliberately acting dickish.
I'll bypass discussion of BSD-licensed authors being burnt like that, because the legal situation was way more complex (before the GPL came on the scene) regarding a lot of BSD code (shortlist: 1) being derivative of other code 2) in at least one case being explicitly paid-for work with explicit "to be reused freely" conditions on the grant)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39415042
1 reply →