Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthebuilders | Hacker News Reader

Yet another Rust project sinking to the depths of closed source.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly, and we ban that sort of account, as we are trying for something different here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

The AGPL is free and open source. It's a strong copyleft licence.

Also, this is a go project, not a rust project.

What's the difference between the languages got to do with the license?

Not sure about what he means, but I've written this https://medium.com/@henvic/opensource-and-go-what-license-f6... in the past mostly about the impact of permissive vs. non-permissive licenses on Go code (because Go programs are statically linked; not sure about Rust).

Rust code is also generally statically linked, and we also have the additional complication of monomorphization for generics.

Nothing, but OP mentioned Rust.

AGPL is a “weak” copyleft license, not strong. It basically means not all derivatives need to be open sourced. If you modify AGPL code but never distribute it or provide it as a service over a network to users, you don’t have to provide source.

> If you modify AGPL code but never distribute it

No free or open source license requires private modifications to be shared. Doing so would violate your privacy, and goes against the 'you can use this software for any purpose' requirement.

> or [never] provide it as a service over a network to users, you don’t have to provide source.

Hell, AGPL is one of the few licenses that does require you to share modifications, if you provide it as a network service. Again: strong copyleft.

after further research, you are correct that AGPLv3 is a "stronger" copyleft license. LGPL3 is a "weak" copyleft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com