Hacker News Reader

Comment by ScottBurson | Hacker News Reader

I should have added: the LGPL is fine; we use lots of LGPL components. The LGPL tends to be my choice for my personal projects as well. I think it strikes a good balance, allowing use in products, but requiring users who improve the component itself to contribute those changes back.

View on HN

I kind of wish there was a ALGPL; a license that works like the AGPL in terms of access over a network being considered use, but could be used unmodified as a library in non-GPL-compatible software like LGPL libraries can.

Sadly, I doubt the FSF will ever write such a license, given how they discourage use of even the LGPL unless absolutely necessary.

Can you provide an useful case for that? I'm struggling to find an example.

The use case is when you want any and all modifications to be contributed back but not force anyone using the library to open source whatever is using it.

Isn't that the LGPL? I'm struggling to see how the network part would enter into it.

If the make a modified version and use it in a web app then they are under no obligation to release the changes with the lgpl but with agpl the would be.

So if you used a library in a webapp, you'd have to release the changes to that library to your users, but not the rest of the app? Ok, that makes sense.

The GPLs (excepting AGPL) only require release of source code if it is distributed outside the company/person modifying it. It comes from a pre-networked time when most software required distribution to be useful.

Setting up a web service with GPL code doesn't meet the bar for distribution, so that situation does not require the code to be made available. That's what the AGPL addresses, network use triggers the requirement to make the code available.

Well, be happy while your users don't discover that the (L)GPL doesn't actually require them to contribute back.

Please explain?

The GPL licenses are purely pay-it-forward. They only have to provide a copy to their users.

For example, the vast majority of the code I write is AGPL-licensed (derived from an AGPL licensed work by a third-party), yet you won't find a copy of it on the Internet. That's because we only have to provide that source to our customers, and while it's fully within their rights, they have no inclination to share it with anyone.

Oh, good point. I guess I've always conflated making the source available to one's customers with contributing it back, but you're right, these are not necessarily the same thing.

Couldn't they just publicly ask any customer to privately provide them with a copy? Failing that couldn't upstream as easily purchase a single license?

Just as the LGPL use-case can be covered with the GPL + an exception (and many other related use-cases like plugins need exceptions anyway), the use-case of a hypothetical ALGPL can be covered with the AGPL + an exception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com