On 14.06.24 01:48, Matt Wilson wrote:
First, I think it's important to recognize that when I post things
on Twitter from my personal account, I'm doing so in an individual
capacity.
It wasn't just you. In the end I mostly got "everyone believes it is not
working so it is not working." Social proof does not cut it for me here.
Indeed, the lack of a "viral" effect for the copyleft obligations of
AGPLv3 licensed programs to "infect" obviously independent creative works
of software is not only a common position of many who offer software
To an engineer writing client code to a copyleft-licensed library, their
client code is probably "obviously independent". But not to a strong
copyleft license of that library. The Linux kernel has long upheld this.
Client code becomes covered work.
The thing that
is different about AGPLv3 is an additional obligation to provide the
complete corresponding source code to modified versions of the program
that are made available over a network to the user(s) of the software.
If by "made available" you mean "conveyed" (as used in the license
definition) and all of this corresponds to using the functions of
running object code on someone else's servers, this would be cloud
copyleft (in my definition).
Note however that it is NOT required that applications using mongo
be published. The copyleft applies only to the mongod and mongos
database programs. This is why Mongo DB drivers are all licensed
under an Apache license. You application, even though it talks to
the database, is a separate program and “work”.
(the typos in the original have been preserved)
My interpretation of their historical position is this: the APLv3 applies
to the "core database source code", and not to anything that is a separate
"work". To make it abundantly clear that AGPLv3 obligations do not
propagate
to other works, like applications that connect to the database, they
published Apache v2 licensed drivers. My personal position is that this
is not strictly necessary, but it's nice to have that clarity from the
producer of a AGPLv3 licensed program.
Yes, different problem though. Just because the AGPL doesn't cut it for
MongoDB's business model (it can't distinguish between
users-who-might-become-customers and the hyperscalers) doesn't mean the
license is broken. All single-vendor open source cloud infrastructure
COMPONENT providers have this problem and need permissively license
shims to not shy users-to-be-customers away. Very different from the
original single-vendor open source APPLICATION providers who originally
created this IP strategy and who didn't need permissively licensed
decoupling layers.
In my personal view, the narrative that AGPLv3 is defective is a
flawed one.
AGPLv3 is apparantly functional for its purpose: to give clear
permission to
offer FOSS as a service (one among many useful purposes), as long as you
fulfill the obligations (importantly, to provide the complete
corresponding
source for a modified version to those who can access the program over
the network).
Interesting. My point resp. my original assumption: The AGPL is just fine.
We only seem to differ in what is covered code. Which means I'm more
confused now ;-)
My current state of thinking. The AGPL works as intended, however,
because it does not allow the vendors of the currently dominant
commercial open source paradigm to achieve their business goal, it has
been dismissed off-hand. The IP strategy of the vendors should have been
dismissed, not the license.
There are some negative consequences of this confusion: Application
vendors who could open source choose to go directly to source-available.
Example on my mind: GitButler; could have been plain AGPL, is SSPL.
Enjoyable as always. Hope there will be a resolution though.
Dirk
--
Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
