Virtually every piece of commercial closed-source software is distributed under terms that are strictly more restrictive than the AGPL, and the AGPL's objectives are --- unlike those of commercial vendors --- benevolent.
Finally, licenses aren't in competition. They're just tools. You use the one that supports your objectives.
I also don't understand how the AGPL's objectives are "benevolent" when the primary purpose of those objectives as applied by commercial interests is to ensure a revenue stream via commercial license.
You yourself said: "GPL-style licenses make it harder for competing companies to use your code. GPL is therefore an easier sell inside of a company."
How is that benevolent? (charitable, intending or showing kindness).
You and I may be arguing at cross-purposes. You seem to care a lot about the hardships licenses create for software users. I couldn't care less. I think it's an inherently benevolent thing for a software author to give away her code for free, and if she wants to do that under a strict copyleft... her code, her terms.
The objective of the AGPL is reasonable. "Don't use my code in closed-source applications". As a developer, that term has been annoying on many occasions (shudder readline), but it has never seemed unfair.
I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling commercial licenses. There's nothing moralistic or benevolent or "fair" about it -- it's simply business.
The only moral argument I could possibly make is that it's disingenuous if not outright hypocritical to claim that the GPL is about "freedom" when its used as merely a business tool that leverages the closed-source work of others to fund ongoing development.
Remember, people can still compete with GPL/AGPL software. They just have to do it with open source code.
Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.
I'm not sure I understand your use of "strictly better" here. If my goal is to solve a specific problem, then isn't the software that solves that problem the best strictly better software?
As far as benevolence, why ascribe primarily altruistic motives to clear business decisions? MySQL's use of the GPL allowed for pervasive adoption, which increased demand for commercial licensing and support services.
Finally, your third graf is profoundly disingenuous. Most GPL software is noncommercial. Everything we use to post on HN is traceable in some way back to GCC, which isn't making money for anyone.
How do you think GCC development is paid for? Just take a look at the (closed source, proprietary, et al) companies providing the primary funding ongoing GCC development (although many are moving to or looking at LLVM, since its licensing provides a better model for this sort of shared OSS funding).
It always comes down to money and either commercial interests or government funding.
The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading. If I write 50,000 lines of C code, and you want to stick that code in your $10,000 software package and not pay me a dime, the GPL (for the most part) keeps you from doing that. Total win.
Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able to contribute, and I don't think that the GPL dual-licensing model users by some enterprise vendors can actually work for most consumer software.
If I produce developer-oriented software that's outside of our core business -- but perhaps enables our core business -- I am very likely to release it under the MIT/BSD license to help aid in wide adoption and external contribution from funding business interests.
If I produce software that is our core business, then I won't MIT/BSD license it. I might GPL it, but only if there's a clear value (ie, leveraging the 'open source' name, aiding in widespread adoption by hobbyists while targeting enterprise users, etc) in doing so.
The business benefits of the GPL are so compelling that I don't think they need my cheerleading.
The benefits are only compelling for --some-- business models. And this doesn't disprove the author's point.
As for other business models, especially around commoditized software, the BSD license often provides the most compelling business benefits as corporates are free to pool resources on code they are free to link against without having to release the entirety of their products under a copyleft license.
The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy.
Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking?
From my non-lawyer reading of the AGPL, it does transit between processes and systems because it covers the output of the application.
Another important point, the AGPL or GPL license is applicable (not at the execution) only when you are distributing (conveying) the software. The AGPL is just an extension of the distribution nothing to do with the execution of the software.
diff -u gpl-3.0.txt agpl-3.0.txt
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
- GNU General Public License for more details.
+ GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
- You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
- If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
-notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
-
- <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
- This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
- This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
- under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
-
-The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
-parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
-might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".
+ If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer
+network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to
+get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its
+interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive
+of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different
+solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the
+specific requirements.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
-For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
+For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
-
- The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
-into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
-may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
-the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
-Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
-<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.The AGPL is only an extension of the distribution constraints as far as the strings embedded in the program are covered by copyright. It can't use distribution as an enforcement boundary for the code, which never gets sent to the user.
The AGPL has everything to do with the execution of the software. That is its entire purpose! I am not allowed to run the software unless all parties providing it input can get its source, with an advertising clause. Anyone bound by the license does not have Freedom Zero.
Regarding the "enforcement boundary", the AGPL is more there to not abuse the "private use" ("not conveying") of a free software as described here :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
In AGPL, You can run the software but if you make it accessible to end-users via a public network in a interactive way, this is considered as conveying.
With all other FOSS licenses, it's lazy bullshit to use them in the LICENSE field of your installer maker -- I absolutely do not have to accept the terms of the GPL to use your software, it's right there in the text of the license, so don't you dare make me click an 'I accept' checkbox.
With the AGPL it's absolutely necessary to do this, because I don't actually have The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
The RMS of twenty years ago would have never approved of such a thing, that he has lent it the imprimatur of the FSF now is testament to his intellectual bankruptcy.
The AGPL will never ever succeed. It will only ever be used by egotistical idiots and dying companies that wish to sear a scarlet letter into their code -- noone but I may profit directly from this work -- as you still retain copyright by default. Is the AGPL transitive across the network the way the GPL is by linking? It seems to me like either answer would show how poorly considered it is as a license.