Hacker News Reader

Comment by remram | Hacker News Reader

The AGPL is actually pretty clear:

> if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version

> To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

Calling over the network is definitely not "adapting (...) in a fashion requiring copyright permission". While the AGPL might not be very much tried in court, copyright is.

View on HN

Maybe the license is pretty clear, but interpretations differ. E.g. Minio provides a very aggressive interpretation of AGPL, equating to "if you use it in closed-source commercial product, it's a violation of AGPL": [0], [1], [2]. For me the whole problem with AGPL is that it's so subjective.

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

[1] https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/12829#issuecomment-889...

[2] https://github.com/minio/minio/discussions/13571#discussionc...

Yes Minio lies, but they can do that no matter what anything is.

It’s not the network call, it’s what you do with it.

Let’s take redis, pretending it’s AGPL.

Adding a new command to the source code: definitely a modification.

Adding a new feature to the redis client: also a modification.

Creating a class (RedisPlusClient) that inherits from its client and adds a feature: Maybe a modification? Feels modification-adjacent.

Building a microservice that uses the redis client and exposes the exact Redis API? I don’t know! Maybe? Feels like a technicality that it is “using a network call” so it doesn’t count.

The thing is, I don’t want to think about any of this. I want to build things. We have seen overwhelming evidence that for-profit companies give back to open source, both through contributions and open sourcing their own code.

Are these licenses limiting the actual impact of the projects in exchange for ideological purity? There is consistent feedback from engineers that this is the case.

I think it's worth considering that stuff like Elastic and Grafana tooling at most places is just internal ops & analytics.

Elastic yes moreso can be used for user-facing search, but in general the point of these ops technologies is plug it in and let your employees use it.

If you wanna modify and have SSO and re-sell it sure yeah you should expect you're gonna need the enterprise license unless you're gonna host a purely vanilla version and layer your own auth over it, which is also possible.

I don't disagree with those new examples, though you've moved the goalpost quite a bit.

I didn’t mean to. I very much don’t know what would or wouldn’t be considered a violation. I think there’s a not-insane-or-bad-faith argument that each of these violate what AGPL is trying to do: force modifications to software into the public domain.

To the people who do love copyleft, I could imagine them not agreeing with a network being a clear line of modification, especially with how common distributed systems are.

For me and how I read it, I agree with you that it’s not. I also understand lawyers who don’t want to be the test case.

just leaving this here for reference

https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

It being clear to eng. and how lawyers evaluate risk are pretty orthogonal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com