Comments on: Google's festering problem with the AGPL

Google gets a free ride when it comes to open source. The AGPL would change this, which makes Google's rejection of AGPL-licensed code from its Google Code site so infuriating.

[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.