Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Probably. GPL "infects" code that's linked to it, so a GPL'd library can only be used in GPL'd programs. A GPL'd text editor doesn't "infect" source code, of course. A GPL'd runtime probably infects the applications that depend on it, but might not if apps can run without linking directly to it.

If you care a lot about GPL infection, this is a problem AGPL addresses; by the logic of the AGPL, even just using your code on a server as part of an ensemble in a SAAS app triggers infection. AGPL can be a reasonable choice, but people will grump about it, because it means it can't be used in commercial SAAS apps.

View on HN

I don't think the commercial aspect of AGPL helps me a lot since my app will use Electron to let people make Electron apps, and there's no way to keep Electron apps closed source. But it does sound like it protects me in the event that I get a source of donations from Patreon, so that contributors can't sue me to get some of the donations since they would have to sign an agreement. That said, I am not opposed to sharing donations with contributors based on contribution percentages, knowing I would be the one writing almost all the code. But I don't understand the legality of all this and I am wondering if they'd be open to suing to get some of the donation money! I try to be business minded like this because even though most of humanity tries to do the right thing, there's always eventually some bad actors who come in and try to take advantage of people.

I am not a lawyer ... Patreon allow people to get money from their "fans". You could make one or one hundred different app, each with their own licence, and it would (should) be irrelevant for support you get through Patreon.

> there's no way to keep Electron apps closed source

See, for example, the closed-but-viewable-source Vivaldi browser.

I did not know that, thank you! This opens up a lot of possibilities...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com