Does someone know a lawyer that understand the difference between #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource ( #Copyleft vs permissive licenses)? I need to help an AGPL project that is being fooled by Google employees to switch to a permissive license when it’s not really needed.
Reshare welcome. It’s OK to DM me and I will make a contact with the devs. Thanks @aral and whoever helps.
Google employees say they can’t use AGPL licensed software and it makes sense if Google ban it for its codebases, but what’s the point of limiting employees from running an app locally? 🤷🏻♂️
So the developers of this app just want everyone to be able to use it and probably don’t understand the implications…
@post so apart from a possible Google concern that their devs as users might extend a fully free app, then we can guess they wish to always be able to produce a non-free derivative.
For that distinction perhaps quote an earlier post of mine on that duality topic.
A wish to avoid licence clashes is valid, but is a nice-to-have not a must-have.
If it was me, I'd like to be certain no user is getting a non-free version with unknowable variances.
Just checked your post but I don’t think it’s that simple.
Copyleft definitely makes sense for developers protecting their work (not only users) and even if someone want to use the software but don’t want/can’t comply with (A/L)GPL, the original developers can relicense their work with a commercial license.
Instead permissive licenses make sense if you want the wider adoption as possible because you are funded in some other way (for example I would require permissive licenses for software produced by public institutions).
I think with permissive licenses the corporations found their way to take advantage of FOSS. Instead with Copyleft it’s FOSS developers that are taking advantage of corporations: “don’t you want to comply with GPL and share your changes accordingly? OK but then fund our development with commercial licenses”.
What’s really detrimental is people not understanding how to use licenses properly.
I think it’s important to understand what is the product: the software itself or something linked to it?
In case it’s software I think it is fundamental to protect it with Copyleft and ad hoc commercial licenses when needed.
If the product is something else, for example technical support, then it is OK to promote the adoption with a permissive license.
The balance comes from how much time is spent on the product. If a company invest all of its resources for the development of an AGPL project and suddenly think to move to a permissive license there is something odd.
There will always be a X amount of money to fund the development of a competitor product starting from the new permissive release. At that point, after some months, the new proprietary product could phagocytize the userbase of the original one. Especially if the userbase doesn’t care much about FOSS.
So I conclude that Copyleft is the minimum shield for a company that does only FOSS development. Who think Copyleft is for users is wrong. FOSS is for users rights, but Copyleft is for developers’.
@post good points, and I like your reversal of mine via "Copyleft is the minimum shield for a company that does only FOSS development. Who think Copyleft is for users is wrong."
To admit, I'm familiar with the copyleft enabled strategy of "use the free or pay to get non-free", especially where the service/support only comes with the latter.
Personally I think a solution to that is spreading the ownership via external contributions but that's from my user side of the glass.
Indeed, this is what CLA (Contributors License Agreements) are for.
@post certainly there is nothing simple about the possible business model complications. Everytime I think I've heard them all another variation or new concept comes along.
Some business models depend on the licence type but many do not - with examples existing of contrary combinations.
Ditto for community involvement.
That begs the question of: which aspects or ramifications do you feel are at play in this case?