How has AGPL failed? Quoting the introduction to Google’s own policies, which are the top hit for “agpl google” on DuckDuckGo:
WARNING: Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google. The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with.
This seems like a resounding success of AGPL.
Proprietary distributed systems frequently incorporate AGPL software to provide services.
Who, and which software packages? This isn’t just about naming and shaming, but ensuring that those software authors are informed and get the chance to exercise their legal rights. Similarly, please don’t talk about “the legal world” without specific references to legal opinions or cases.
I feel like this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that you use “open source” fourteen times and “Free Software” zero times. (The submitted title doesn’t line up with the headline of the page as currently written.) This shows an interest in the continued commercialization of software and exploitation of the commons, rather than in protecting Free Software from that exploitation.
The AGPL was intended, in part, to guarantee this freedom to users, but it has failed. Proprietary distributed systems frequently incorporate AGPL software to provide services. The organizations implementing such systems believe that as long as the individual process that provides the service complies with the AGPL, the rest of the distributed system does not need to comply; and it appears that the legal world agrees.
The purpose of the AGPL is not to stop commercial users of the software, it’s to preserve the four freedoms.
It doesn’t preserve those freedoms in practice when it’s been used, so it’s a failure.
But really AGPL doesn’t have anything to do with this. No-one claims AGPL is a license like the one I describe in the article.
Proprietary distributed systems frequently incorporate AGPL software to provide services.
Who, and which software packages?
mongodb is a high-profile example, used by Amazon.
I’m fairly certain that the version of mongodb that Amazon based DocumentDB off of was Apache licensed, so I don’t think that applies here. From what I’m seeing, they also explicitly don’t offer hosted instances of the AGPL licensed versions of Mongo.
That’s fair, you’re probably right. There are lots of other hosted instances of MongoDB that used the AGPL version though, so MongoDB is still the highest-profile example of this. That was the motivation for MongoDB’s move to SSPL.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.
in other words, you cannot run your own proprietary fork of an agpl program; you have to offer users the modified sources. it says nothing about the sources of the other programs that that program communicates with, or the network infrastructure and configuration that comprises your distributed system.
The software that’s actually used for the largest distributed systems maintained by the largest organizations isn’t available, even though individual services within it are open source.
That’s because those systems are exploitative and proprietary.
![catern avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="16" height="16"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>){kind=small}
How has AGPL failed? Quoting the introduction to Google’s own policies, which are the top hit for “agpl google” on DuckDuckGo:
This seems like a resounding success of AGPL.
Who, and which software packages? This isn’t just about naming and shaming, but ensuring that those software authors are informed and get the chance to exercise their legal rights. Similarly, please don’t talk about “the legal world” without specific references to legal opinions or cases.
I feel like this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that you use “open source” fourteen times and “Free Software” zero times. (The submitted title doesn’t line up with the headline of the page as currently written.) This shows an interest in the continued commercialization of software and exploitation of the commons, rather than in protecting Free Software from that exploitation.I said how in the article:
The purpose of the AGPL is not to stop commercial users of the software, it’s to preserve the four freedoms. It doesn’t preserve those freedoms in practice when it’s been used, so it’s a failure.
But really AGPL doesn’t have anything to do with this. No-one claims AGPL is a license like the one I describe in the article.
mongodb is a high-profile example, used by Amazon.
I’m fairly certain that the version of mongodb that Amazon based DocumentDB off of was Apache licensed, so I don’t think that applies here. From what I’m seeing, they also explicitly don’t offer hosted instances of the AGPL licensed versions of Mongo.
This is true. MongoDB changed their license, in response to Amazon using forks of their own software to compete with them.
Then your article headline is misleading, is it not?
That’s fair, you’re probably right. There are lots of other hosted instances of MongoDB that used the AGPL version though, so MongoDB is still the highest-profile example of this. That was the motivation for MongoDB’s move to SSPL.
the agpl says
in other words, you cannot run your own proprietary fork of an agpl program; you have to offer users the modified sources. it says nothing about the sources of the other programs that that program communicates with, or the network infrastructure and configuration that comprises your distributed system.
So, that seems fine then? What’s the problem with that?
That’s because those systems are exploitative and proprietary.
Just use BSD.