Ask HN: Help me understand paid software released under AGPL3 | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Help me understand paid software released under AGPL3

5 pointsdarkhorse136 comments

Hey HN, I'm quite confused about how software released under the AGPL3 can be also be paid. Let's say I have a front-end library that I want to open source under the AGPL3.

I want to actually sell my software to my customers, so something like 3 tiers: single-site license, multi-site license, SaaS license.

How does this actually work (or does it not work at all)? Wouldn't the AGPL3 license mean that anybody can use my software to build something for free (as long as they also open-source it)?

Would the BUSL make more sense here? I fully understand that this would no longer make it open source though.

View on HN

I don't think you should conflate free price and free source. [A]GPL is about availability of source code. It's end-user protection. End users should be able to know what's going on with their software and should be able to tinker as they see fit. You can sell your software for money and have stipulations that the source is always made available and that changes are made public. Non-paying entities simply do not have the legal right to use your software, they don't have license to use it. When you include a license with your software, you're allowing people to use it (under those terms). If you don't give/sell them a license, they don't have right to use it.

I think a high visibility usecase of AGPL would be Redis vs Amazon. Amazon took the, then more permissively, open-sourced Redis and basically "selfishly" tweaked and altered it without contributing back upstream, and then began selling that as a service. Basically taking someone elses thing and selling it as their own (which was well within their right with the MIT or whatever license Redis was using at the time). So Redis re-licensed as AGPL.

You could also release it under more than one license. Offer a FOSS license generally, but offer to sell proprietary licenses for those that don't want to disclose their source/otherwise follow the terms.

FSF actually mentions monetization in one of their articles, I think, How to Choose a License. Worth a read. [A/L]GPL are definitely not adverse to monetization, it's more for end-user protection.

Amazon was the third largest contributor to Redis prior to the license change. Also, Redis isn't AGPL, it's dual licensed and one of the licenses is based on the AGPL. Not trying to defend Amazon, but facts are important.

The AGPL just means that any other entity (amazon) building a business on top of it, including just hosting the code must release their copy of the sofware and their modifications. They can charge for the software and hosting, they just must share the code.

That is why RedHat can charge for their version of linux.

Now you as the copyright owner can release your code under the AGPL but also release it under any other license. For example you could have your project on GitHub as AGPL, but then sell copies of it licensed under MIT or BSD licenses if a customer was willing to pay. That is called dual-licensig model.

On this talk you can see more about open source models

https://youtu.be/Xt1kY7EEXb8?si=V6etE2-qZsICIdsL

You can license your software under multiple licenses. You can offer an AGPL3 license for those willing to accept those terms alongside letting customers pay for a different licensing agreement.

EDIT: Linking the FSF's contact page: https://www.fsf.org/about/contact/email. You can get in touch w/ them for licensing questions at licensing@fsf.org.

my .02

Free(Libre) software has never been about price. Typically any price/code is either

  - For some kind of support contract (eg for pro users, SMB, or enterprise)
  - Open Core/Pro (closed source) version

Yes, others can compete with you. If you're worried about this, then don't open source.

Also, so called source available languages do not meet the definition of both Open Source or Free/Libre software.

Most companies will NOT deal with GPL since it's such a grey area around the implications, which is why dual licensing might be an option.

Lastly AGPL or GPL3 is really GPL with a clause specifically around web/cloud hosting.

If you're the only author involved (or if all authors, including those of downstream dependencies, agree), you can dual-license the software: AGPLv3 by default, proprietary for paid-up customers.

So: whatever you put on GitHub (or wherever) is available for anyone to use for any purpose, as long as they re-contribute their changes to your code and/or the source code for directly-linked projects.

To anyone who doesn't want to meet those obligations, you can offer a proprietary license, allowing them to use the code in any way you see fit.

Turning this into a sustainable business, however, may be a challenge. So, some questions to consider: why do you want to open-source? Because you have existing dependencies? Existing contributors? Or just because it sounds good?

If the latter, just forget about it, and go full-proprietary: nobody will care. If you depend on contributors that might insist on open-sourcing their code, talk to them to figure out the best way forward. And if it's because of dependencies: you'll have to respect their license, and good luck with building a business on top of that...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com