As an aside, it really bugs me that the GPL morphed into this thing that gives developers the freedom to run privacy violating and user-abusing cloud services, but doesn’t allow manufacturers to ship the same stuff on physical (and perhaps offline) hardware the end users have physical control over.
When the GPL 3 added the anti-TiVo clause, it really should have also added AGPL’s anti-google clauses at the same time.
Anyway, I guess the above restriction means I won’t be using LGPL for stuff I write at work, even though most of what we do gets open sourced anyway.
They tried that, everyone balked. You know how Linus Torvalds rejected GPLv3 for Linux specifically because anti-TiVo[0] would be "changing the deal"? Imagine that times a thousand.
Furthermore, AGPL is only an anti-Google license specifically because Google is as internally afraid of it as Microsoft is of GPL. You can defeat the Affero clause by putting the software behind a proxy, for example. Furthermore, the Affero clause is only appropriate for web applications - ideally ones in dynamic languages that execute from source that remains on disk. Slapping it on all GPL software would be really, really dangerous. I've heard of people using AGPL on Ethernet PHYs - how the fuck do you offer source code to every packet that crosses an Ethernet switch?
If you really want a license clause that would absolutely decimate any corporate freeloading behavior, you want OpenWatcom's anti-private-forks clause[1]. It does everything AGPL tries to do, with fewer legal loopholes. But good luck getting that past RMS. The problem with supra-GPL copylefts is that anything that is legally watertight to a corporation is also going to impinge on a lot of freedoms we enjoy. Remember: the whole point of the GPL is to reject copyright, and that specifically means lots of corporate freeloading, because the whole point of copyright is to stop corporate freeloading.
[0] From what I've heard, the anti-TiVo clause in GPLv3 is actually less strict than the FSF advertised, at least relative to how TiVo used Linux. I can't find the original article I heard this in, though!
[1] Specifically, the OpenWatcom license requires distribution of source code whenever you use a modified version of the software.
> Remember: the whole point of the GPL is to reject copyright, and that specifically means lots of corporate freeloading, because the whole point of copyright is to stop corporate freeloading
I don't think this is true. My understanding (which could be flawed) is that the whole point of the GPL is to weaponize copyright in order to guarantee freedoms, not to reject it (a subtle but important distinction).
Also the whole point of copyright doesn't seem to be to stop corporate freeloading, though that is of course part of it. It's point is to ensure that the original creator has rights to benefit from the work, whether that means getting stolen from by a huge corporation or stolen from by teenagers passing memes over the internet, or adapted by an individual/sole proprietor as part of some larger work, etc. My guess is we probably agree on this part and the debate is probably over semantics (i.e. you might have meant "business in general" by "corporate" rather than specific corporations).
Could someone elaborate on this? This is NOT my understanding of the license, and it seems absurd considering e.g. Mastodon is AGPL but the standard install requires a reverse proxy[1]. If using a proxy defeats Affero, why would the Mastodon team do this? Are they stupid?
[1] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/dist/nginx.co...
Then I'm the only user of your software, and never request the code, even though ten billion users use it via my proxy.
The only other thing I could think of to prevent this would be a DMCA 1201 claim - i.e. that the view source link is a DRM system, and that a proxy that removes those links is illegal. Except all v3 licenses explicitly foreclose the ability to make DMCA 1201 claims relating to features of the software.
My guess is, Mastodon used AGPLv3 primarily because the Affero clause scares off big tech companies, notably Google. I don't have access to any IRC logs or issue tracker comments to prove this is the case, though.
Let's assume you modify the AGPL program, so the remote interaction clause kicks in. If you have the software provide links to the source, but you yourself also strip those out before any of those remote-interacting users can ever see or use them, I don't think a court would have a problem saying that you're not actually "offering an opportunity" for the users to download the source and are therefore in violation.
"To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying."
"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:"
I think you would have a very, very hard time arguing that you had conveyed the source under this definition.
This is like paying a parking ticket on a credit card, charging it back, and then arguing that it's paid because you sent the money.
> Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that!
Welp, looks like I was wrong about that one.
This is different from GPL, since you can't use GPL'd code in your closed-source product at all, not even if you let the user replace the GPL'd portion with their own version.
What purpose of the LGPL is defeated?
Concretely, using gcc with default settings will bring in glibc and compiler intrinsic code snippets which were both LGPL last time I checked. If I use GCC to compile and statically link closed source code that I have a redistribution without modification license for, then I can’t redistribute my binary without violating my license for the closed source code.
Ouch! MUSL + clang it is, I guess. (I value my users’ right to own and operate computers even higher than their right to recompile code, so I’d rather not restrict my lgpl tainted binaries so they can only run in the cloud).
However, if you do choose to statically link against glibc (which is highly discouraged, for technical reasons) then yeah, you have to give your users access to object files or some other mechanism to statically link against a different version of glibc than the one in the executables you ship. And yeah, this might potentially be incompatible with the licenses for certain proprietary libraries, which simply means that you can't statically link against those binaries and LGPL-licensed libraries at the same time.
The stuff in GCC which gets includes into your binary (such as crt0.o, and whatever code it generates) is except from the GPL.
I have no idea what you're talking about wrt restricting your users to only run your binaries in the cloud.
All of this would be allowed if you put the same device in a data center, and then had the user connect to it remotely.
The purpose of /which/ LGPL? And that's the thing. After GPL demonstrated that it had teeth and got some case law underneath it, the "family" of derivatives exploded, each one of them identifying as "open source" but each with their own additions, removals, modifications or other opinions on what "freedoms" they convey (mostly removals).
There are those of us out here who believe that the core purpose of all of these licenses were defeated a long time ago when all of this legal swizzling first began. I personally hate GPLv3, AGPL, LGPLv3, etc. with a fiery burning passion; thank god we were able to see some transformative projects emerge under actually free licenses before everything got ruined.
Either 2.1 or 3.0 I guess, the difference between the versions isn't that relevant to hedora's question.
The GPL exists to protect users against companies which develop proprietary software. If you prioritize the freedom of companies to restrict users over the freedom of those users, it makes sense that you'd dislike the GPL style licenses.
Why do you hate them so much? Is it strictly as a developer, or as a user?
As a developer I've certainly felt constrained and annoyed by them at times, and I'm very glad there are alternative open source licenses available, but as a user I can't imagine a scenario where you would hate them. After all, the freedom they guarantee is to the user, not the developer.
Even as a developer though, the family has it's place. I don't think Linux would be a thing had it had a more "permissive" license. That GPL is what forces the big corps to contribute their improvements back. If not for the GPL, I think it would be in a position similar to that of BSD, and the majority of users would have no choice but to use a proprietary OS
The GPL is amazing and wonderful, but the various "attachments" of the GPL are more weaponized (and to the detriment of users!) than the GPL ever was.
I'm glad the kernel stuck with GPLv2, and I wish other things had, too. A GPLv3 Linux Kernel would likely have helped a BSD tremendously, though but I think having everyone work on the same kernel without reservations has been an unmitigated good.
