Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't consider the AGPL to be fully open source. To me, it isn't in the spirit of open source.

(BTW the Open Source Institute was unable to get a trademark for "open source" so it doesn't matter that they approved it.)



I hesitate to comment (we've had a few copyleft vs BSD etc-discussions...) -- still, I think the best way to look at the AGPL is as the GPL patched to work around the move from software distribution to software as a service: the end user no longer gets a copy of the software, and so the GPL doesn't protect the end user any more (which is who the GPL is for, incidentally the end user might also be a developer -- but that is incidental: the first Freedom (Freedom 0) is the freedom to run code. You don't have that freedom with SaaS -- if the service provider goes away, so does your ability to run the software).

Now, one can be in agreement with the idea that the four freedoms are important, especially as we increasingly live in a world where software is not only convenient, but necessary in our daily lives -- but the idea with the AGPL, and why it is needed for server software -- is pretty clear.


What does "fully open source" mean?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: