137
What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I worked on an oss library with an MIT license and my colleagues told me they with that instead of GPL was with GPL it basically forces anyone who uses the library to make everything in their project available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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 everyone using GPL code had to make their entire project FOSS then TPLink and DLink wouldn't have any market share. The only reason OpenWRT exists is because Linksys was forced to open up their code because they had illegally refrained from opensourcing their code, which was a great positive for the community

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    If you link to GPL library, your software has to be GPL. You are confusing it with LGPL. Though you can bypass this by making the library its own standalone app. Like let's say FFmpeg which is just a frontend for libAV libraries. (ignore that these libraries are actually LGPL, so you can link to them.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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 that the binaries that use the source code must have their source code available in full (including other source and modifications that are part of the same binary).

    The only case in which you don't need to provide the source for GPL software is if you don't actually distribute the binary to customers.. private binaries do not have to be published with their 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 private server without sharing the source code to the clients using the service, since they do not really run the server program although they 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, but the loophole I was mentioning allows companies to not release the code even when it's GPL, that's why I was mentioning the AGPL (which is different from the LGPL).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent