undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandyp-kw1y ago0 comments

Why would your whole product need to be AGPL just because the database is ?

It's like saying that Oracle owns my product because I use MySQL.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

scosman1y ago· 2 in thread

MySQL is GPL not AGPL. Very different.

franga20001y ago

But his wouldn't be the case even if MySQL was AGPL. The license would only apply to the database itself and not your backend or frontend code.

The difference would be if your code used a library that was GPL/AGPL. For server-side software, under the GPL, mere users wouldn't be entitled to the code, while under the AGPL they would be.

This also assumes that library was used in a way that counts as derivative work, which isn't always the case.

resoluteteeth1y ago

> This also assumes that library was used in a way that counts as derivative work, which isn't always the case.

That's something a court would have to decide.

Whenever the AGPL comes up, people start arguing that in their opinion it doesn't cover certain things and therefore criticism of the license is fear mongering, but this misses the point that even if there is room to argue for that position, no company is going to want to touch AGPL software when the situation is ambiguous, since that creates a lot of risk, so that ambiguity is itself a fatal flaw of the AGPL license.

1 more reply

debugnik1y ago

The client libraries are also AGPL.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse