
Ask HN: Your opinion on AGPL license - hippich
I started to play with some open source software and was quickly told by author to keep all my code available to download on the same site as I am providing service.<p>In my case this is not a problem, since it somewhat hobby project, but I thought about using my experience in future to deploy commercial projects using the same stack. Now I doubt.<p>To make clear - it's poker-network software.<p>It consist of server, which is AGPLv3, and client jPoker which is GPLv3. Author claims everything on the server side should be AGPLed too. But this also involves disclosing code for custom integration with other products as well. And if I would do commercial project, I will definitely need to do some custom stuff. There is still question if I communicate with server through API, will my server code, which in fact is also client, become automatically AGPL...<p>Anyway, what do you think about AGPL license for open source projects in general keeping in mind that with so much SaaS projects, owners legally able to benefit from GPLed work while not giving back to community.<p>Do you work with AGPL software deploying end product for client on his servers? How you deal with requirement to make code available to download?
======
_delirium
The short version is that the AGPL is like the GPL, except any code that you
use to run public services is considered "distributed" in the same way that it
would be if you had distributed it on a CD-ROM. Think of your thin-client
AGPL-using webapps as if they were thick-client GPL-using desktop apps, and
the requirements are roughly the same.

That still leaves the same grey areas as in the GPL, which seems to be some of
your questions: what exactly counts as an API, what counts as a derivative
work versus a separate piece of software that communicates, etc.

The intention though is usually to require you to AGPL any SaaS you build on
top of the original AGPL'd code, the same way the GPL would require you to GPL
any thick-client app you built on top of GPL'd code. That effect is usually
intentional, because AGPLing code is sometimes used as an alternative to not
releasing it at all. For example, Dropbox keeps their source code closed,
partly to keep someone from being able to build a competing SaaS on it. Some
people choose to AGPL it instead, as an in-between sort of route: people can
now build a competing SaaS on your code, but they have to open-source any
improvements, which you can then incorporate back into your own service, so at
least they can't leapfrog ahead of you using your own code.

I'd recommend that if your goal is to build a SaaS that has significant
portions of its source code stay closed-source, you probably shouldn't use
AGPL'd code.

------
devmonk
"Ask NH"? Is this question for residents of New Hampshire only?

Barring that, first off:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License>

Basically, looks like FSF suggests that any software that would run over a
network (like a web application, web service, etc.) should be AGPL rather than
GPL.

I like the MIT license, because while I love free software, I don't want
businesses hindered from using it.

~~~
adulau
Copyleft type licenses (like AGPL or GPL) are also business friendly. They
just choose different business model.

There was also a discussion on the topic previously and especially how the
non-copyleft licenses (like MIT or BSD-like) are not always contributing to
the free software ecosystem:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1642140>

~~~
evgen
Try naming a single business that uses AGPL.

Claiming that AGPL is business friendly is pretty deceptive (i.e. it is
business friendly provided that your business is not the sale of software or
online services), but around here most people will see straight through the
bullshit, chuckle a bit, and move on.

The short version that everyone here who actually runs a business will tell
you is that GPL is fine for most situations, but you should avoid anything
that has the AGPL license for the core of your business unless you really have
no other option.

~~~
martey
Status.Net (raised over $2 million in funding) uses the AGPL. Their software
is similar to Twitter (they run <http://identi.ca>), but they seem to be
targeting the enterprise market: <http://status.net/enterprise-network>

If I made my living selling desktop software, the benefit of using BSD
licensed libraries without contributing back to the community would be
obvious. The GPL has a similar status among web companies. As a _consumer_ ,
however, I appreciate the choices that AGPL software give me (e.g. hosting the
software on my own server, adding or removing features, etc.).

~~~
hippich
I see status.net uses CC license?

------
runT1ME
I like it. It's good if you're goal is to eventually sell dual licensed
products. A company that is just using your product on the small scale
shouldn't have a problem with sharing their code too. If a company has
monetized it in a way that makes them protective of their code, you can sell
them a commercial license.

------
jmillikin
If you don't distribute portions of the software, then you don't need to worry
about AGPL vs GPL vs whatever. Copyright licenses only apply when you perform
some action which requires copyright permissions.

Based on your post, I'm guessing the AGPL'd code simply listens on a socket,
and doesn't send itself to the client. If this is true, then you don't need to
do anything special to comply with it.

