[gjsman-1000]

> One of the things which the FSF did right was the GPL

And the GPL is dying. Every year fewer projects are maintained under the GPL standard. Violations abound anyway. The MIT License and other permissive licenses; or commercially restrictive licenses like the SSPL, are the new go-to; because the GPL didn’t think about SaaS or “Tivoization” until it was too late.

[Croftengea]

AGPL is the way.

[gjsman-1000]

AGPL is a lawyer’s nightmare. Not just because of the restrictions - but because it’s very, very sloppily put together.

Does connecting a AGPL-licensed database to your website make your whole website AGPL? What is the line between an innocent connection, or a viral integration?

What happens if you add a proprietary protocol to the database specifically for your app? Do you need to open source it, if that database is/isn’t publicly accessible? Why wouldn’t it be considered? Your project dependencies certainly aren’t directly publicly available, yet you agree the AGPL applies there.

Some have quoted the FSF about how “internal data structures” should be the distinction. But even that is something a lawyer could seriously bend - is JSON from your database, that only your app understands, such a structure?

The license is ridiculously vague in this regard. Not that it matters anyway - almost all of the big AGPL projects offer alternative proprietary licenses to paying customers, so it’s really more of a source available license.

[alright2565]

Let's look at this paragraph, which is the only real difference between the GPL & AGPL, because I think the English is perfectly clear and understandable:

> 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. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

> Does connecting a AGPL-licensed database to your website make your whole website AGPL?

The user doesn't interact with the database, so no. Since the app server is not linking to the database, it also isn't subject to the AGPL from that direction.

> What is the line between an innocent connection, or a viral integration?

Exactly the same as the GPL, since that section has not changed.

> What happens if you add a proprietary protocol to the database specifically for your app? Do you need to open source it, if that database is/isn’t publicly accessible?

If the user can access the database, you must provide them with the combined source code under the AGPL. If the user cannot access the database, you do not need to do anything.

> Why wouldn’t it be considered? Your project dependencies certainly aren’t directly publicly available, yet you agree the AGPL applies there.

You are linking against those dependencies. Therefore the whole work is under the AGPL, through the same mechanism as the GPL. Now that the entire work is under the AGPL, you must provide users who access it over the network the source code.

> Some have quoted the FSF about how “internal data structures” should be the distinction.

See this is a real source of ambiguity. But it is an ambiguity that applies to every *GPL license, not just the AGPL. But it's really not as big of a deal as you make it out to be, using the documented public network APIs obviously is not linking.

[gjsman-1000]

> I think the English is perfectly clear and understandable.

Because you are not a lawyer. The points I’ve made have been cited by actual lawyers. Your opinion as a technologist blinds you to the degree of legal ambiguity.

https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL

Also, the very fact that these opinions exist shows this license is not safe. There’s never a correct interpretation that will perfectly win the day eventually, only rulings. As the AGPL has never been in court before, things could quickly go sideways.

As my second link, written by an actual lawyer, puts it: “Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke.”

[alright2565]

> https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

If you have some background knowledge of Google's architecture, this explains exactly why the AGPL is banned there: all code is built from one monorepo where everything is linked together.

> https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL

This completely agrees with what I said. At it's core, the A part of the AGPL only kicks in if:

> “you modify the Program” and > “your [modified] version supports such interaction [remotely through a computer network]”

Yes he calls out various potential problems and a potential loophole, but those same problems are also present in the regular GPL!

[devman0]

The AGPL also turns what was distribution license (GPLv3) in to a EULA which kind of contradicts freedom zero of the GNU philosophy.