Google's festering problem with the AGPL

Google apparently likes open source that lets it "borrow" open-source software while giving comparatively little back, and always on Google's terms. While I think Google has been doing better of late vis-a-vis open source, its policy of blocking projects from its Google Code forge that are licensed under the AGPL is wrong and a betrayal of the open-source principles it claims to respect and approve.

As Google's Chris DiBona says,

In fact we do not support the AGPL on code.google.com....It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.

Well, no, Chris, AGPL is not "meaning something else altogether." It actually means precisely what the GPL was always intended to mean: Reciprocity. It is likely true that Google doesn't like that reciprocity requirement, but that's "something else altogether."

What is the AGPL? It's the Affero General Public License, and finishes the job that GPLv3 was supposed to do: Broaden the definition of "distribution" enough to keep Web freeriders like Google, Digg, etc. from using open-source code without contributing back.

The problem with the reciprocity clause common to all open-source licenses is that they were written with a pre-web application world in mind. We've moved on, with an increasing percentage of new applications being written to run over the Web, rather than being locally installed. As such, more and more applications aren't subject to open-source license requirements at all.

The AGPL fixes this.

All of which makes it fascinating that Google is restricting AGPL-licensed projects from being hosted on its Google Code site. Google gives a few reasons for this, but none really sound convincing. I'm with Fabrizio on this one: Google most likely isn't allowing AGPL-licensed projects on Google Code because it's not in Google's interest to have to work on a level-playing field with open source.

Or, rather, that Google doesn't believe this. If this is Google's belief, I disagree. I think it would find that it and everyone else in the industry would benefit by having Google, Yahoo!, etc. actively contributing back to the projects from which they derive benefit. I am willing to bet that the "secret sauce" that Google is adding to MySQL, Linux, etc. is not hugely different from what Yahoo! is adding.

It's very similar to the "offline" open-source world where Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, and others are almost certainly all "innovating" in parallel on the same open-source projects...which innovations are likely more similar than they are different. Were these companies simply to share the majority of what they're developing, everyone would benefit from being able to innovate further beyond the core, similar foundational code.

Google, Yahoo!, and their ilk may prefer to think of themselves as different, but they're not. They're just the enterprises of tomorrow, and bringing open-source licensing "up to code" (pun intended) to match the way they distribute is a net positive for them and for the industry.

In the meantime, some projects (like Clipperz) will leave Google Code. Google likely won't care. Not until other projects on its forge stand up for open source and leave, AGPL or not. Google may not like open source on its own terms, but open-source projects should recognize its asymmetric relationship with them and leave Google Code.

[mpsayler]

"It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com by saying it is GPL, "

Pick on them for the right reasons, please. It's not the GPL.. If they say they won't host AGPL code, don't try to do it. Feel free to ding them for not hosting AGPL.

[mpsayler]

Honestly, reading the whole discussion at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_thread/thread/1714c5c0ef5d9f9f/7d59a938d295bb8f makes me think people are making mountains out of molehills.

[The_Decider]

Who in their right mind would use google to store anything of value?

Google are as big of thieves as MS is.

[jl451]

I think it's interesting that Google seems to see AGPL only as 'something else altogether' and basically, as something to be avoided. We had an interesting discussion of this last month when we considered whether the AGPL is a burden, or an opportunity:

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/24/is-the-agpl-half-empty-or-half-full/

JL

[marckrobinson]

APGL supporters are well intentioned but misguided. The AGPL assumption is that companies making changes for internal use would still use the same open source code even if they were forced to distribute those changes as directed by the AGPL. The reality is that the AGPL based code simply will not get used in the first place.

We all recognize that GPL code is often used unfairly. In fact, most users are just users and give nothing back directly. However, even these users give back by increasing awareness and growing the demand, which leads to more open source opportunity, interest and participation by others. So any user of open source at any level is actually a benefit, even if not directly.

A company that makes internal changes like Google does is no different in this respect from a fairness point of view. The primary difference is that they are even more committed and often more visible, creating and even larger positive impact.

So what is changed by re-licensing under AGPL instead of GPL? You simply lose those users who are impacted by the change. You will rarely force a user to distribute their changes, they will move on. There are far too many technical options. In other words, a world where Google feeds back all of their changes is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and it never will. Those key users will find other options.

The end game is that AGPL based projects will always find less success than similar GPL based projects. Eventually the GPL based version will win enough market share that the AGPL based one will fade away. In fact, it is very possible that had Linux used AGPL instead of GPL from the beginning that it would have faded away long ago.

[jbarmash]

marckrobinson - your argument is a well reasoned one, although I disagree.

When open source originally started with the idea of copyleft, there were also people who didn't think that could work, either. The key issue is how you define distribution - if hosting was defined as distribution from the very start, and it wasn't because it simply didn't exist at the time), we wouldn't be even having this conversation.

Also, another issue is one of momentum. You have to start somewhere. Yes, given two equivalent projects, one with GPL, another with AGPL, perhaps web 2.0 websites will choose GPL. However, if enough projects switch to AGPL, then it will become more significant movement.

Open source users get great software for free. If packaged software vendors are asked to contribute back, why are hosting companies any different? After all, they get hundreds if not thousands of man years worth of investment in engineering and QA. It's not unreasonable to ask for some code back, code they are already writing.