Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by nnx on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:40AM (#31176376)

Is there any uptake in AGPL use? Besides perhaps the initial spike near AGPL creation, any popular opensource library using AGPL since?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by crb on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:46AM (#31176411)

There is a recent uptake in companies who want to make sure that their software isn't 'resold' by hosting companies (or book shops). They license the software under AGPL, so it's still "free", and can be used by individuals (or carefully by companies), but also have a commercial license available. You can't make "Hosted $THING" without a partnership.

Grafana is the biggest example that comes to mind: https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/20/grafana-loki-tempo-relic...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by boris on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @01:02AM (#31176505)

This is inaccurate: you can definitely make "Hosted $THING" under AGPL. What you cannot do is modify said THING, host that (more precisely, make it publicly available as a service; if it's private, it's still ok), and keep the changes private.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by josephcsible on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @01:07AM (#31176532)

> They license the software under AGPL, so it's still "free"

What's with the scare quotes?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by SllX on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:47AM (#31176419)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...

Some of the ones on that list I didn’t know used AGPL: Anki, Bitwarden, Ghostscript, EdX, Diaspora, Mastodon, Searx, Signal’s server code.

So a fair few from different time periods. Obviously doesn’t have the adoption rate of more popular open source licenses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by jabl on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:47AM (#31176424)

Nextcloud comes to mind.

Most other AGPL usage I'm aware of is using it as a poison pill license in order to sell a proprietary license.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by wmf on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:43AM (#31176399)

Since it's in the news today... Mastodon.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by enriquto on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @03:40AM (#31177352)

> any popular opensource library using AGPL since?

Not quite a library, but overleaf (the online LaTeX editor) is pretty big in the scientific community and it's agpl.

https://github.com/overleaf/overleaf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by ternaryoperator on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @01:43AM (#31176729)

iText, probably the most widely used non-Adobe PDF library, uses the AGPL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code licensed under the AGPL must not be used at Google by sauruk on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @12:45AM (#31176406)

Mold (the linker) uses it

[ Parent | on HN ]