Hacker News Reader

Comment by photonbeam | Hacker News Reader

Time to support the fork

Interesting, it looks like Incus is the fork (announced in October)? I've really wanted to try LXD but it was infected with Snap and the other Canonical baggage.

What i need is straightforward way to run/manage VMs with the ability to have a couple of hosts in a HA setup to failover VMs on an NFS share. libvirt does this just about, but it's pretty painful to use, and the stack needed for Proxmox/oVirt feels too complex.

As far as I could tell LXD did what i want.

https://linuxcontainers.org/incus/try-it/ give it a try :)

Well, I'm sold, and that demo sandbox is cool.

LXD is available via ordinary .deb's as of the Debian 12 release earlier this year, FYI.

I mean, it was time to support the fork from the day it was forked, but now is good too...

AGPL: The radioactive license when you don't want anyone to use your "open" source. (Google, Meta, and more cannot and will not use AGPL code at all.) This change to LXD harms VPSes and any company that uses LXD in SaaS.

When you don't want Amazon, Google etc to earn big money on your work. Actually not even that, they could if they played fair and contributed back all changes they make. But they don't want to play fair.

You're completely ignoring the harm to small business and individuals and putting unreasonable demands for money by collective punishment. If you don't want to release open source, then never release it. Pretending to be open source and simultaneously demanding money is resentment, sour grapes, and trying to have it both ways. Maybe you've seen what happens most often when FOSS projects relicense or go closed source: they die.

Who demanded money? Using AGPL is demanding code. (The modifications users of your code made.)

This does typically not affect small companies. They don't have the resources to make significant changes to the code, so there is nothing they would need to contribute back. And they don't employ lawyers forbidding them to use AGPL.

It's funny you mention the "harm" a license like AGPL causes. How did that work out for, e.g., MinIO? Would it be unreasonable for them to demand you need to actually attribute them and also keep your attributions open if they open up their work for you? Ig it is but only if you demand to get their work from free without acknowledging that may also be entitled to some demands of their own.

> This change to LXD harms VPSes and any company that uses LXD in SaaS.

No, it likely (IANAL) means VPS companies using copyleft code have to share their code in turn.

Except, you're demanding the unreasonable and the insane which is the problem.

Canonical avoid and may profit from this, because they are in a position to relicense all the AGPL code (thanks to the CLA or having written it in the first place). If you do want to make changes and keep those changes proprietary, throw money at Canonical and they will probably give you a license that lets you.

Lots of stuff is under AGPL and does just fine. Mastodon is a current example.

Will not, possibly. Cannot is inaccurate -- they could, but they choose not to.

IIRC Microsoft and AWS do use AGPLv3 code, at least in the form of offering hosted Grafana. Seems to me that if MSFT can make peace with the license, then there's little good reason for other BigCorps to shun it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com