News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement. Parent comment

Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by hbbio on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @08:44AM (#6682592)
Thanks.

Yes, we are thinking about the following business model for PEPS, which was built for an important account but of which we own the IP.

1. Open source under the AGPL license, so that anyone can host its own instance easily and hopefully we can build a community around the product. 2. Sell support (together with a non-AGPL license for corporations).

OR

1. Open source under the MIT license the current product. 2. Sell a complete packaged solution with add-ons for corporate users.

Any feedback between the two?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by airencracken on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @05:20PM (#6685919)
AGPL would be perfect for such a product.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by angersock on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @11:53AM (#6683659)
Voting for 2...AGPL is like biohazard level 4 viral.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by rufugee on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @03:33PM (#6685316)
How exactly would it be viral in this case? I ask because it's damned confusing. Since this would be an email server, wouldn't it be a drop-in component in most folks' infrastructure? If I understand it correctly, it would just require me to make the source code of the email server/client itself available to my users...not any of my other unrelated infrastructure apps, correct?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by ensignavenger on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:46PM (#6685731)
This is the problem with the GPL/AGPL- what exactly must be open sourced under what conditions has been debated many times, and different people/groups have come to very different conclusions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by belorn on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @07:10PM (#6686560)
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.

Please point out what exactly the different conclusions are to that text.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by ensignavenger on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @10:29PM (#6687293)
I am not an expert on the various points of the debate- I only know it exists. You can Duck Duck Go for "gpl derivative work definition" and find some references to this debate. Perhaps someone else has a specific answer for your question, sorry.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by riquito on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:26AM (#6688666)
Correct, just the source code of the AGPL application, not of your server.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by angersock on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @03:35PM (#6685332)
I was under the impression that AGPL requires the open-sourcing of everything that touches user data at any point in the pipeline.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by teddyh on Thursday November 07, 2013 @02:26AM (#6688110)
The AGPL is exactly the same as the GPL, except that if there is a button to click to download the source code of the program, you are not allowed to remove that button.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by angersock on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:28AM (#6690279)
From the AGPL FAQ:

If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work."

That last part--"derivative work"--is somewhat the rub.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by belorn on Thursday November 07, 2013 @10:47PM (#6694316)
If that part of the informal FAQ worries you that it might be interpreted in some strange way, just look at the actually license and read it.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version

The definition of Corresponding Source code is listed earlier in this HN thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by belorn on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @07:03PM (#6686528)
And WTFPL which you are using is the level 5 of foul language, and the death sentence to software names.

See, I can also use offensive language to describe a license. Doesn't that make for a nice conversation here on HN?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: I'm working on an open-source Gmail replacement by angersock on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:20AM (#6690221)
To be fair, if you use our code under the WTFPL (and don't, because it's like three versions and two test suites out of date, at this point!) we don't require that you open-source any other part of your stack.
[ Parent | on HN ]