> Legally, you don't want to deal with the burden of constantly checking if you're complying with some license that a dependency of a dependency of a dependency is using.

If you're not modifying that dependency, you don't need to do anything since your dependencies are handling it. Especially with GPL, since it's likely that your dependency's dependency will make it GPL as well–but you should be doing this anyways, of course.

> I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code. What if I just don't feel like up-streaming?

Then you're just not in agreement with how GPL works. It's meant to be an explicit guard against people taking projects, forking them, and never contributing back.

> Then you're just not in agreement with how GPL works. It's meant to be an explicit guard against people taking projects, forking them, and never contributing back.

I'm definitely not in agreement with it, I just don't like that it tries to present itself as some kind of purist "free software" license, but in reality it mandates how code can be released. How is that free? To take a page out of the blog post, it sure sounds like propaganda to me.

GPL is about freedom for software users, not for software authors. It places restrictions on what software authors can do in order to give users more privileges. (Which I personally believe is the right trade-off, as users are usually in lesser-privileged positions to begin with.)

>I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code. What if I just don't feel like up-streaming?

Then don't use the software that's AGPL. Problem solved.

If somebody licences their code with AGPL then it probably means that they either don't want that or they want a cut of any commercial use of the code (dual license) - which is fair, no?

>Free is meant to be free

There are two types of free (beer and speech) and it kind of feels like you're deliberately confusing them.

It sounds like you are arguing against a different point than Drew is making here. He is saying that the AGPL is no more viral than the GPL, and that its added restrictions aren't particularly onerous. You seem to be arguing against the whole GPL family of licenses, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but doesn't really speak to what Drew is talking about.

> This is true, and I don't see much wrong with it. I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code.

I would suggest taking another look at Drew's argument for the AGPL:

> The reason they spread these misconceptions is straightforward: they want to discourage people from using the AGPL, because they cannot productize such software effectively. Google wants to be able to incorporate FOSS software into their products and sell it to users without the obligation to release their derivative works. Google is an Internet company, and they offer Internet services. The original GPL doesn’t threaten their scheme because their software is accessed over the Internet, not distributed to end-users directly.

Whether or not this is true of Google in particular, it is true that if you are a company writing open-source software that is accessed over the internet, the AGPL makes it more difficult for competitors to benefit from your work while keeping their improvements secret. If it was GPL-licensed, competitors could use it however they want without releasing their modified source so long as the software isn't "distributed".

> It sounds like you are arguing against a different point than Drew is making here. He is saying that the AGPL is no more viral than the GPL, and that its added restrictions aren't particularly onerous. You seem to be arguing against the whole GPL family of licenses, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but doesn't really speak to what Drew is talking about.

Maybe I misunderstood his post, but he specifically compares AGPL to MIT in the last paragraph, which actually motivated me to write my reply, as the difference between the two licences is night and day.

Perhaps you're getting downvoted because it's 2020, and your analysis makes zero mention of what some would call the most important group of people involved in any software project: the end users. There's little left to debate - this particular dead horse is well kicked - but your comment omits any sign you're willing to acknowledge the "freedoms for whom?" aspect of the issue.

> Perhaps you're getting downvoted because it's 2020, and your analysis makes zero mention of what some would call the most important group of people involved in any software project: the end users.

This is a fair point. I guess I think the protected class in the context of open source should be the developers -- because they're the ones putting in the actual work. So I'd always favor their freedom over the end users'. Even if the "developer" might be a Fortune 500 company.

Plenty of MIT-sourced projects blew up because Google or Facebook started using them. And, I'm no fan of huge Fortune 500 companies, but let's be fair: they often contribute back.

>This is true, and I don't see much wrong with it. I don't like the idea of other code mandating how I should release my code. What if I just don't feel like up-streaming? Free is meant to be free, and (A)GPL does incur a cost -- at the bare minimum an ideological one.

You don't need to go upstream - you just need to provide source to users. I explained this in the article, and it's not especially onerous. You've also fallen for a common misconception: the "free" in free software is not about cost, it's about "freedom". The GPL family of licenses are designed to ensure the freedom of the user, not the developer, to view and modify and improve and redistribute the source code for programs that they use.

You write this as if the whole debate wasn't about what the definition of the "source" that needed to be provided was. The concern is that the AGPL is written in a way that admits to an expansive definition of that source.

I think we should have a standardized MIT license that require paying above a certain market cap or something. An anti-sassfiy license too. That's what AGPL is used for currently but it focuses on contribution and openness rather than monetization.

Many of new database projects and infrastructure tools come up with their own licenses to protect themselves from such problems. A standardized approach would work better for everyone.

Beware: the approach you describe qualifies as neither "open source" nor "free software". It might be worthwhile to develop such licenses and experiment with this distribution model - but please call it something else, like "source available" or "fair source".

I am aware. The problem is many companies won't contribute to open source with code but might pay up if they have no choice. Why can't monetary compensation be counted as contribution?

The core point of OSS is freedom to the users, not big companies. MIT provide more freedom to users than AGPL and so does money by empowering contributors to keep working on it. I think there is a case that this should be open source.

Monetary contribution certainly can be considered contribution. But FOSS is not about "contribution" at all.

Big companies are users, too.

> Big companies are users, too.

I think we disagree here. Big companies aren't users in the same way I am. People have different power dynamics in the real world. I won't treat rich people the same for stealing food the way I treat poor people for stealing food. One can afford it but still chooses to steal.

That's fine, everyone knows that many people don't like the (A)GPL. Not sure we need to have that discussion at every mention of it though? (I assume the latter is the source of at least some of the downvotes)