Re: What's wrong with the AGPL?

On 26.06.24 16:19, Roland Turner via License-discuss wrote:
> On 26/6/24 20:42, Dirk Riehle wrote:
>> It works for CiviCRM (non-profit) like it works (worked) for SugarCRM
>> (commercial). If you can AGPL the whole application without additional
>> permissive client library shims etc, it works as intended. It doesn't
>> work for the component vendors that came later and which needed more
>> complicated licensing; the vendors problem is that they can't separate
>> potential customers from hyperscalers through licensing strategy.
>
> It might be worth taking a moment to consider the objectives of open 
> source licensing with respect to commercially-produced software (and 
> commerce generally). The objective is not to weaken protections to 
> whatever extent a class of investors might find profitable, it's to 
> preserve user and developer freedom, and as a secondary concern to 
> facilitate whatever commercial opportunities might exist therein. That 
> is, it's about freedom, not about investment. In particular, any 
> variant of "separate potential customers from hyperscalers through 
> licensing strategy" is likely to be incompatible with free or open 
> source licensing, because the objectives at that point are 
> diametrically opposed.
>

I don't see a contradiction courtesy of open source licenses.

> There is an important problem here, and I don't yet have a view as to 
> how it might be solved. It's that one of the areas that's a 
> particularly strong candidate for F/OSS collaboration is also one of 
> the areas that's strongest for IaaS and PaaS cloud service provision, 
> meaning that cooperation is always going to be difficult:
>
> * Werner Vogels (Amazon CTO) describes it as "undifferentiated heavy
> lifting".
> * I think it's close to what you're describing as components.
> * I'd describe it as engineering investment in artefacts and
> capabilities that aren't determinative for purchase decisions by
> the organisation's customers.
>

This is easy. You are talking about community open source, which is 
communally owned, unlikely to change its license ever, and probably not 
going to be owned by a single company, ever.

> When you move "undifferentiated heavy lifting" from an organisation 
> selling widgets to a cloud service provider, you change who the 
> organisation is, and therefore who its customers are:
>
> * Prior to the move, the engineers in the widget maker were free to
> cooperate with their peers in other makers of different widgets
> because their respective organisations weren't engaged in zero-sum
> competition with respect to any of their customers, or even with
> direct competitors so long as what they're co-operating on is not
> differentiating for their respective customers.
> * After the move, the "component" now is the product (or the service
> of hosting it is) and the customers are the makers of various
> widgets that integrate the component somewhere in their product or
> internal processes, so the component is very much differentiating.
> At this point, the opportunity for cooperation disappears.
>
> I'm not sure any sort of IP strategy can resolve this. The economic 
> forces are overwhelming. I'm not opposed to looking for approaches of 
> course.
>

I'm not sure I understand the problem but the usual place for important 
community open source is a foundation that ensures a fair and equal 
playing field for all involved companies so that they can sleep well 
regarding their investment / dependency on the open source code.

> The bad part: The other side, the hyperscalers, seem to be in cahoots
>> with the vendors, because they also want to see the AGPL considered
>> ineffective.
>>
>> So we have two opposing parties, both claiming the AGPL is no good, for
>> their own reasons, both wrong IMO.
>
> I'm not seeing evidence for this, but perhaps I have missed it. Which 
> hyperscaler(s) is/are *demonstrably* breaching AGPL? (i.e. no casting 
> of aspersions, an actual violation)
>

I doubt any says they are breaching AGPL but folks like Matt not 
speaking for his employer ;-) says copyleft simply doesn't trigger as I 
thought it would.

Cheers, Dirk

-- 
Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550


_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org