On: Re-License Vaultwarden to AGPLv3

[a_random_canuck]

How is that dangerous? You have the freedom to run or change the code however you like, but if you use the software to provide service to users over a network, then you must share any modifications you make to that software.

In other words, whether you let me download and run the software locally, or you let me run the software remotely on your server, you always need to provide the source code.

Don’t like these conditions? Then don’t run the software. No one is forcing you to run it.

[AstixAndBelix → a_random_canuck]

"Remote running" is not a thing. It's my server, you are not running anything except the client application. Every single bit of code is running on my computer and you are not entitled to know more other than the API you are using to talk to it.

The AGPL is dangerous because it redefines the meaning of "running" a program by extending it beyond your own devices. Of course the AGPL can have its uses as I already explained, but it should not be considered a free license

[bayindirh → AstixAndBelix]

Well, don't license the code you write with AGPL, then, or don't use code licensed by AGPL. Clearly there are people who don't share the same viewpoint with you, and use AGPL license.

Like Nextcloud, for example.

[AstixAndBelix → bayindirh]

Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on their devices? Absolutely.

Would I like a world where people are always entitled to know what code runs on devices they don't own? Absolutely not.

[tm-guimaraes → AstixAndBelix]

It's about know what code runs in devices they are _using_. The user doesn't own your server but he is using it through the client.

AGPL is meant to apply the 4 freedoms to anything that is _used_.

[bayindirh → AstixAndBelix]

Well, if I'm trusting my data with some service, I'd rather know the code handling my data.

There's nothing inherently wrong about telling people "Hey, this is the code handling your data, come see for yourself".

And, this is a huge win, and show of confidence, if you ask me.

[bombolo → AstixAndBelix]

This conversation would have great benefit if you actually went to read the text of the AGPL license.

By default you are entitled to run only code that you wrote yourself.

You need the copyright holders of anything else to grant you the right to run their code.

Microsoft usually grants the right behind payment.

AGPL authors grant you the right on the condition that you share your changes (if you do any changes) with your users.

If you choose to disobey the terms, two things can happen:

1. Nobody notices and nothing happens.

2. You can be taken to court.

> but it should not be considered a free license

Why not? Which of the 4 freedoms is it taking away?