What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities?
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
For me, my personal projects are generally MIT licensed. I generally don't like "restrictions" on licenses, even if those "restrictions" are requiring others to provide their source and I want as many people to use my projects as possible, I don't like to restrict who uses it, even if it's just small/home businesses who don't want to publish the updated source code.
With that said, though, I have been starting to come around more to AGPL these days.
-
For me, my personal projects are generally MIT licensed. I generally don't like "restrictions" on licenses, even if those "restrictions" are requiring others to provide their source and I want as many people to use my projects as possible, I don't like to restrict who uses it, even if it's just small/home businesses who don't want to publish the updated source code.
With that said, though, I have been starting to come around more to AGPL these days.
I wohld agree, because you really downplay the scenario.
As soon as you accidentallt create something, which everyone starts to use or has an use case, then some Cooperation will copy that thing, make it better and make your community dissappear because there is the newer tool which you cant change the code of anymore and need to use a monthly subscription or something to even use.
So, it somehow seems like you're gaslighting yourself by downplaying the use case.
Mostly it will be small buisnesses and hobbyists, which I would like to code for them too. Especially when they are nice and friendly. But as soon as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon gets hands on it and sees a potential to squeeze money through it by destroying it, then they will surely do it.
-
I like BSDs more than GPL just personal choice
Squeek, squack. Your opinion is whack
-
Note that AGPL can take changes from MIT but MIT can't take changes that are purely AGPL without following the AGPL.
So, as far as I can understand, any improvements done to the AGPL version cannot be carried over to the MIT version (without very painful and careful re-implementation / re-engineering). That alone would be a big advantage to the hypothetical AGPL fork.
Thats the point of GPl licenses. You cant close source it.
MIT is a free and also heavy closed source friendly. GPL fixes the greed
-
I wohld agree, because you really downplay the scenario.
As soon as you accidentallt create something, which everyone starts to use or has an use case, then some Cooperation will copy that thing, make it better and make your community dissappear because there is the newer tool which you cant change the code of anymore and need to use a monthly subscription or something to even use.
So, it somehow seems like you're gaslighting yourself by downplaying the use case.
Mostly it will be small buisnesses and hobbyists, which I would like to code for them too. Especially when they are nice and friendly. But as soon as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon gets hands on it and sees a potential to squeeze money through it by destroying it, then they will surely do it.
I edited my comment to better and more fully reflect my thoughts. It's hard to properly express myself when I've been as sick as I have been with bronchitis and possible pneumonia for the past 4 weeks.
Hopefully my comment now better reflects my thoughts.
-
If the only problem is that you can't use dynamic linking (or otherwise make relinking possible), you still can legally use LGPL libraries. As long as you license the project using that library as GPL or LGPL as well.
However, those platforms tend to be a problem for GPL in other ways. GPL has long been known to conflict with Apple's App Store and similar services, for example, because the GPL forbids imposing extra limits that restrict user freedom and those stores have a terms of service that does exactly that.
I guess I forgot to mention that those platforms usually require you to sign NDA's that prevent you from releasing any code that references their SDK.
This makes it impossible to license your entire project as GPL/AGPL, as you would be breaking the NDA. -
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
Canonical still licenses most of their stuff under GPL3, including new stuff. The license (other than it being open) was probably not even a consideration in deciding to experiment with uutils.
-
Thats the point of GPl licenses. You cant close source it.
MIT is a free and also heavy closed source friendly. GPL fixes the greed
Yes. I did not say otherwise.
I get downvoted for stating a fact, and yet the only answer essentially agrees with why I said... shrugs
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
fyi: GNU coreutils are licensed GPL, not AGPL.
there is so much other confusion in this thread, i can't even
-
Only if they make changes/improvements to the code. If it's a library that is used then no, AFAIK you don't need to.
If you are using a GPL library that is statically linked to code with a different license the result is one binary that has inside both GPL and other license code, which would not be allowed under the GPL terms, because it requires at the binaries that use the source code must have their source code available in full.
The only case in which you don't need to provide the source for GPL software is if you don't actually distribute the code to customers.. private code does not have to be published with its source, as long as you never made the binaries public and never gave it to anyone else. Only when you give it to someone you need to provide the code.
This allows for a loophole in which if you are providing a service, then you can run the software privately in your server without sharing the source code to the clients which do not really run the server program although indirectly benefit from its results. This is why the AGPL was created, since it has a clause to force also those offering services to make the source of the server available to the users of the service.
-
What's stopping people from doing that today is network effects. There are enough differences today between bsd coreutils and gnu coreutils that substituting one for the other doesn't work out of the box.
The chain of events that would cause a problem are: due to Ubuntu popularity rust MIT core utils overtakes gnu coreutils and people drop support for gnu coreutils, then a large and we'll funded corporate entity could privately fork rust coreutils and lock people in.
To me, the problem is not really so much about "locking people in" (it's also unclear what you mean by that, if they were already using that ecosystem before using coreutils aren't they already locked in?)
To me, the problem is the lack of trust.. how can I be sure that the version of uutils shipped with "X Corp OS" has not had some special sauce added-in for increased tracking, AI magic, backdoor or "security" reasons?
-
The only problem is companies will always try to use MIT and using it for small projects will set a precedent. And we don't have a governing body strong enough to enforce the GPL (nobody listens to the FSF)
Ha, well, if my single-digit-downloads (all by me) NPM module is influential enough to set precedent, then I'd consider that a success.
-
Ah, OK. No, of course not. I was thinking more about hobby developers.
I think many hobby developers also see "hobby" developing as part of their career.
So they would happily try and have their hobby align with future employment possibilities.
-
"apolitical" tech-bros who are mostly just interested in their six figure paychecks and fancy toys.
This, I understand.
laissez-faire "libertarians" who are ideologically opposed to the restrictions in the GPL
This, I do not. Apologies for my tone in the next paragraph but I'm really pissed off (not directed at you):
WHAT RESTRICTIONS???? IF YOU LOT HAD EVEN A SHRED OF SYMPATHY FOR THE COMMUNITY YOU WOULD HAVE BOYCOTTED THE MIT AND APACHE LICENSE BY NOW. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO HANDING CORPORATIONS YOUR WORK AND BEGGING THEM TO SCREW OVER YOUR WORK AND THE FOSS COMMUNITY.
I feel a bit better but not by much. This makes me vomit.
I write code for a living. I cannot, by any means, utilize a GPL library to support the needs of our customers and will either have to write my own replacement or dig to find something with less restrictions like MIT.
On many occasions, we will find bugs or usage gaps or slowdowns that can get pushed back to the MIT licensed open source cause we were able to use it in the first place. If your goal is to make sure your library gets used and gets external contributors, I don't see how GPL helps the situation as it limits what developers can even choose your library in the first place. If your goal is spreading the ideology that all software should be free, go keep banging your drum for GPL.
-
I write code for a living. I cannot, by any means, utilize a GPL library to support the needs of our customers and will either have to write my own replacement or dig to find something with less restrictions like MIT.
On many occasions, we will find bugs or usage gaps or slowdowns that can get pushed back to the MIT licensed open source cause we were able to use it in the first place. If your goal is to make sure your library gets used and gets external contributors, I don't see how GPL helps the situation as it limits what developers can even choose your library in the first place. If your goal is spreading the ideology that all software should be free, go keep banging your drum for GPL.
Thank you for your work. If people like you were all around us, then I wouldn't mind as much projects using MIT since we would still see contributions. But I doubt there's that many people out there like you. Thank you for contributing to FOSS.
-
If you are using a GPL library that is statically linked to code with a different license the result is one binary that has inside both GPL and other license code, which would not be allowed under the GPL terms, because it requires at the binaries that use the source code must have their source code available in full.
The only case in which you don't need to provide the source for GPL software is if you don't actually distribute the code to customers.. private code does not have to be published with its source, as long as you never made the binaries public and never gave it to anyone else. Only when you give it to someone you need to provide the code.
This allows for a loophole in which if you are providing a service, then you can run the software privately in your server without sharing the source code to the clients which do not really run the server program although indirectly benefit from its results. This is why the AGPL was created, since it has a clause to force also those offering services to make the source of the server available to the users of the service.
I don't mind if people use LGPL or some derivative of GPL. All I want is improvements to the source be published, and MIT simply doesn't enforce that. I have no intention to force companies to publish their code that they have worked on for a long time - doing that never really helps. But I do want them to publish changes they make to already FOSS products so the author and the community can benefit.
-
I don't mind if people use LGPL or some derivative of GPL. All I want is improvements to the source be published, and MIT simply doesn't enforce that. I have no intention to force companies to publish their code that they have worked on for a long time - doing that never really helps. But I do want them to publish changes they make to already FOSS products so the author and the community can benefit.
Yes, then the AGPL would suit better whenever the software is a service, for the reasons I explained.
-
Thank you for your work. If people like you were all around us, then I wouldn't mind as much projects using MIT since we would still see contributions. But I doubt there's that many people out there like you. Thank you for contributing to FOSS.
Like 80% of the top 10 most contributed libraries on github are either MIT, Apache, or BSD. I think you underestimate how many corpo folks do contribute or wholly support open source libraries.
-
Squeek, squack. Your opinion is whack
lol grow up
-
I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"
Or on the flip side, they want usage to be pervasive so they win. I mean come on man it's like "move this file" and "make this directory".
these applications aren't rocket science and providing them under a license that people will use outside of the hardcore Linux space is just good marketing.
