Hacker News Reader

Comment by stavros | Hacker News Reader

> the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses

Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free.

> Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty.

Which is why I use the AGPL. If you want to make money off my work, pay me.

> Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context.

Good! At this point, I'd be happier if everyone who wanted to contribut to OSS played in one sandbox, and everyone who just wanted to use OSS for gain without giving anything back went somewhere else.

View on HN

It's pretty disparaging that there are people on HN who feel confident enough to enter into discussions about software licencing —albeit on a throwaway account— but don't understand that software can have more than one license.

I'd like to think I do understand all sides of this, but I will admit AGPL does give me pause for thought. It makes sense for standalone projects which don't have to be integrated. But at component and library level, when there's so much MIT/BSD/etc on npm/pypi/etc, I don't have to think about it.

Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…

> Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…

I'm fairly sure there's a GPL like that, either the GPLv3 or a version of the AGPL. It definitely doesn't let you alter the source for network servers, though, exactly like you say.

I believe you refer to AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

"It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there."

Notably, the Canvas learning management system is licensed this way, and all of their JavaScript is unminified so you can download it from the server.

Ah, yep! Thank you.

Yes it is, on IoT space, the POSIX clones competition is heating up, none of them use GPL.

You’re basically using the AGPL like a “freemium” upselling business model. I’ve got no issues with that, it’s your property after all. Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom.

And be prepared that this may not work out for you. The AGPL is particularly nasty and even infects across network boundaries (not tested in court though). No one with a sane state of mind will even come close to AGPL software - unless they’re a not for-profit entity.

> Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom.

...because I want everyone to be able to use my software for free, except if they're going to get paid for my work? Cool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com