Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by reeses 4729 days ago
I agree with much of this, but mainly on their sales and marketing tactics.

However, what does your rationale for finding them reprehensible have to do with the article? The Affero GPL/GPLv3 is arguably the most open source license available.
3 comments
makomk 4729 days ago
The Affero GPL has a clause requiring the operators of network servers that use AGPL code to provide full source of the network server. Berkley DB is used in, amongst other places, Subversion - so when they next do a distro upgrade in a few months, a whole bunch of developers are going to find they're no longer license compliant and have no easy way of becoming license compliant.
link
glogla 4729 days ago
That's nonsense.

Using SVN has nothing to do with SVN being under GPL2, GPL3, AGPL, Apache or any other license that allows for free use, as long as you don't modify SVN and distribute (or provision over the network, in case of AGPL) the modified version. Using SVN to hosting your code repository is in no way modifying and distributing it.

link
__alexs 4729 days ago
Unless you are modifying the code the section 13 of the AGPL does not require you to distribute source at all so most distribution users would never notice the difference. I guess this might effect you if you had some crazy internal fork of BerkeleyDB that you were regularly merging upstream into but that doesn't seem like a huge use-case for this software somehow.
link
tome 4729 days ago
Subversion is Apache licensed, so I fail to see how this would be a problem.
link
Sanddancer 4729 days ago
Subversion uses bdb as its backend.
link
tome 4729 days ago
And the Apache licensed Subversion is still compatible with AGPL licensed BDB. What am I missing here?
link
tome 4728 days ago
Apparently the Apache License is not compatible with AGPLv3. I confess I do not understand why.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/07/msg00041.html

link
krakensden 4729 days ago
I thought the BDB backend for Subversion had been deprecated for years...
link
toyg 4729 days ago
As TFA says, the problem is the anti-tivoization clause, which creates issues for web developers, issues which weren't there with the previous licenses and that should push more people to buy commercial licenses as insurance.
link
Flimm 4729 days ago
No, the article does not mention the anti-tivoization clause. The AGPL requires you to share the source code with users, even when the software is hosted on your machines. That's what differentiates AGPL from GPLv3.
link
toyg 4729 days ago
Apologies, I thought that was exactly the anti-tivo provision of gpl3/agpl ? Not that I've looked too hard, it's really not my field.
link