Hacker News Reader

Comment by phoronixrly | Hacker News Reader

I hope more people start using AGPL from the get-go for their projects.

Companies are using AGPL not to benefit users or the community but to extort users and competitors into paying them. It's becoming fake open source.

They're not extorting anyone. Or is anyone having paid product "extorting" their customer?

AGPL is true open source.

Links please, also it's literally FSF and OSI approved, how come you call it fake open source?

https://github.com/minio/minio/discussions/13571#discussionc...

https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/13308#issuecomment-929...

Lets just say they have a weird take on what constitutes agpl-compliant

> the AGPL license requires that all software connecting with MinIO be 100% open source for you/your users

Indeed, I don't think that's correct. That depends on the definition of "connecting" but I was under the impression that if you use MinIO on a server, the services that connects to MinIO don't need to be open-source. Only the server component that include MinIO need to be, and only if end users are connecting to that component. But correct me if I'm wrong.

According to commonly understood agpl interpretation you’re correct but not as minio understands it:

> Combining MinIO software as part of a larger software stack triggers your GNU AGPL v3 obligations.

> The method of combining does not matter. When MinIO is linked to a larger software stack in any form, including statically, dynamically, pipes, or containerized and invoked remotely, the AGPL v3 applies to your use. What triggers the AGPL v3 obligations is the exchanging data between the larger stack and MinIO.

https://min.io/compliance

Seems like people misunderstanding the AGPL. (btw, I don't think this makes it fake open-source!)

Actual agpl is legit open-source, projects that try to twist agpl into more restrictive license are not

If you are in the business of making money like minio, you may as well just use a commercial license. No business will touch AGPL, they will just opt to pay for a commercial license.

That's kinda why the AGPL is good; it lets non-businesses and open-source companies use it and encourages closed companies to purchase a license.

It’s not good bc it ties survivability of a project with a single company. If company folds so does your open-source project. Also imagine if linux wouldn’t be able to receive contributions from google and other big tech

That only works because Linux is run by customers, which the GPL covers, instead of provided as a web service. The AGPL is needed to encourage the same contributions for SASS products.

> That only works because Linux is run by customers, which the GPL covers

You’d be shocked to find out but linux is also run by cloud providers and offered as a service (in the form of VMs).

And unfortunately because of murky water of what constitutes “derivative work” in agpl (case in point - see the title of this thread) most companies won’t ever touch agpl licensed projects

> No business will touch AGPL

That's not true, I am in contact with many business using AGPL software. (Not Minio specifically)

Some businesses choose not to touch it, but that's their losses.

In fact, I am starting to ask myself the opposite... 'Since project X is MIT-licensed, do they need my contribution at all? Probably not, their license probably brings them many high-quality corporate contributions.'

Except these "high-quality corporate contributions" are kept to themselves for corporate reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com