And at this point, it appears running code through an LLM to translate it eliminates copyright (and thus the licence), so $Anycorp can use it.
Our stuff is AGPL3 licenced and if this present trend continues we might just switch to MIT so at least the little guys can take advantage of it the way the big guys can.
I think the whitewashing of code through LLMs is still unproven if it actually works for a reasonably complex project and also it’s still kind of legal Wild West - I think no one knows for sure how it will work out.
In reality most $Evilcorp have policies against AGPLv3, which is why projects can make moneh selling a less-restricted enterprise license for the same code.
I often hear this but I don’t really understand it. Not saying you need to explain it to me but what is the issue with AGPLv3 that turns those corporations away?
To my non-lawyer eyes it looks like MIT or Apache2 but modifications need to be made public as well.
If you don’t make any modifications then it should be fine?
Or do most $Evilcorp aim to make modifications?
Or is AGPLv3 something like garlic against vampires (doesn’t make sense but seems to work)?
Only if they provide the software or software as a service. Then I suspect it's good enough if the modifications or forks made are shared internally if software is used only internally, but on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
This is the point. They can use and modify it, but they also have to share their modifications, i.e., help its development. Yet most megacorps never even touch this license.
I’m maybe daft but AGPLv3 doesnt prevent $Evilcorp from using it, they just need to share any modifications or forks they made?
And at this point, it appears running code through an LLM to translate it eliminates copyright (and thus the licence), so $Anycorp can use it.
Our stuff is AGPL3 licenced and if this present trend continues we might just switch to MIT so at least the little guys can take advantage of it the way the big guys can.
I think the whitewashing of code through LLMs is still unproven if it actually works for a reasonably complex project and also it’s still kind of legal Wild West - I think no one knows for sure how it will work out.
In reality most $Evilcorp have policies against AGPLv3, which is why projects can make moneh selling a less-restricted enterprise license for the same code.
I often hear this but I don’t really understand it. Not saying you need to explain it to me but what is the issue with AGPLv3 that turns those corporations away?
To my non-lawyer eyes it looks like MIT or Apache2 but modifications need to be made public as well.
If you don’t make any modifications then it should be fine? Or do most $Evilcorp aim to make modifications? Or is AGPLv3 something like garlic against vampires (doesn’t make sense but seems to work)?
1 reply →
Only if they provide the software or software as a service. Then I suspect it's good enough if the modifications or forks made are shared internally if software is used only internally, but on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
> if software is used only internally
Internal users are still users tho. They are entitled to see source code and license allows them to share it with the rest if of the world.
2 replies →
This is the point. They can use and modify it, but they also have to share their modifications, i.e., help its development. Yet most megacorps never even touch this license.