The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with

Re:The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with by catern on Monday July 27, 2020 @02:54PM (#23968181)

I don't know exactly what the author of this post means, but it doesn't have be a "conscious" decision on the part of Google to spread misleading information for their own benefit. It's very easy (I contend) for humans to believe things that are poorly supported by the evidence but which are beneficial for them.

So even if it's obvious that the AGPL doesn't have the effects that Google's policy suggests it does, it doesn't require active deception on the part of Google for them to believe it does. It just requires that they be deluding themselves for their own benefit - which I think is a very common practice for humans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The terms of the AGPL are pretty easy to comply with by hyperpape on Monday July 27, 2020 @04:16PM (#23968949)

This is a good point. My two thoughts are:

1. I don't find it easy to read the original post as implying Google is honestly convinced of its viewpoint.

2. It's a huge difference in meaning. Assume for the sake of argument that Drew is right about the interpretation of AGPL.

How should we interpret Google's actions? If they're paranoid, and afraid that the AGPL might require them to open-source their entire code base, that's unfortunate. You might still call them greedy assholes making open source worse, but it is a real fear that most commercial entities would be concerned about if it's realistic.

But if they knew better, and were lying, that's a completely different level of shitty behavior. If there's any ambiguity about that in Drew's post, it ought to be resolved.

[ Parent | on HN ]