Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by protomikron 1328 days ago
Yes, I think so too.

> Recently this has been my thought... that my future projects should be AGPL from day one.

If that means that companies can't use it, because that would mean, if they use it they would be required to open-source their managed SaaS solution ... that's a feature?
1 comments
buro9 1328 days ago
Where I think it's a feature is that instead of them taking from open source and expecting to be able to do that without having to do anything from their side (except demand fixes / updates / features)... AGPL forces them to invest some time and money into sharing any changes they've made and contributing back.

It prevents corps running their own version without sharing those changes back, and it forces corps to think carefully about whether they are willing to invest (their time and effort) in the OSS projects that they consume.

I doubt it would mean that they have to OSS their SaaS offerings. Most likely things are all implemented as little services and the boundary of what they'd have to OSS at most is one of those. More it forces them to be a better and more mindful consumer of OSS.

link
pabs3 1327 days ago
AGPL doesn't force companies to share back upstream, only that their users can get the source code. Most of those users probably are non-technical folks who don't understand software development or even if they are power users won't bother to download the source, let alone contribute back upstream. The company can choose who their users are too, so they don't have to accept the OSS devs who want to get code back as users.
link
colejohnson66 1328 days ago
IANAL, but the AGPL scares people (like lawyers) simply because it’s untested legal waters. The GPL at least is clear about what counts as distribution, but the AGPL, depending on who you ask, may or may not be. The GPL also has case law in a few countries; the AGPL doesn’t.

Some developers at $BIGCORP may think they’d be fine using an AGPL library/utility in one spot, but legal gets nervous, so they recommend management shut it down to avoid lawsuits.

link
pabs3 1327 days ago
This appears to have been an AGPL related case, although it wasn't about the network clause.

https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_c...

BTW, the AGPL network clause triggers on modification, not on distribution (which the AGPL has the same provisions for as the GPL) or public performance or something else.

link
buro9 1328 days ago
Which is fine :) Then I don't get $BIGCORP demands for things for my lil' precious made-for-me-but-shared-with-the-world project.
link