About Fly but not about the GPU announcement, I wish they had a S3 replacement, they suggest a GNU Affero project that is a dealbreaker for any business, needing to leave Fly to store user assets was a dealbreaker for us to use Fly on our next project, sad cause I love the simplicity, the value for money, the built in VPN.
> I wish they had a S3 replacement, they suggest a GNU Affero project that is a dealbreaker for any business
AGPL does not mean you have to share everything you've built atop a service, just everything you've linked to it and any changes you've made to it. If you're accessing an S3-like service using only an HTTPS API, that isn't going to make your code subject to the AGPL.
Yep, our lawyers say to not use and we have to check components and libs we use too. People are really shooting themselves in the foot with that license.
You assume that people want you to use their project. For MinIO, the AGPL seems to be a way to get people into their ecosystem so they can sell exceptions. Others might want you to contribute code back.
I have no problem with contributing back: we do that all the time on MIT / BSD projects even if we don't have to. AGPL just restricts the use-cases and (apparently) there is limited legal precedence in my region to see if we don't have to give away everything that's not even related but uses it, so the lawyers (I am not a lawyer, so I cannot provide more details) say to avoid it completely. Just to be safe. And I am sure it hurts a lot of projects... There are many modern projects that are the same thing, but they don't share code because the code is agpl.
Sounds more like the license is doing its job as intended, and businesses that can afford lawyers but not bespoke licenses are shooting themselves in the foot with that policy
Exactly. If someone doesn't want to use your software because the copyleft license is stricter than they would prefer, that's an opportunity to sell them a license.
> AGPL does not mean you have to share everything you've built atop a service, just everything you've linked to it and any changes you've made to it. If you're accessing an S3-like service using only an HTTPS API, that isn't going to make your code subject to the AGPL.
I am not so sure about that. Otherwise, you could trivially get around the AGPL by using https services to launder your proprietary changes.
There is not enough caselaw to say how a case that used only http services provided by AGPL to run a proprietary service would turn out, and it is not worth betting your business on it.
> > AGPL does not mean you have to share everything you've built atop a service, just everything you've linked to it and any changes you've made to it. If you're accessing an S3-like service using only an HTTPS API, that isn't going to make your code subject to the AGPL.
Correct, this is a known caveat, that's also covered a bit more in the GNU article about the AGPL when discussing Software as a Service Substitutes, ref: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html.en
Anything “clever” in a legal sense is a red flag for me… Computer people tend to think of the law as a black and white set of rules, but it is and it isn’t. It’s interpreted by people and “one clever trick” doesn’t sound like something I’d put a lot of faith in. Intent can matter a lot.
> Computer people tend to think of the law as a black and white set of rules
I've never seen someone put this into words, but it makes a lot of sense. I mean, idealistically computers are deterministic, whereas the law is not (by design), yet there exists many parallels between the two. For instance, the lawbook has strong parallels to the documentation for software. So it makes sense why programmers might assume the law is also mostly deterministic, even if this is false
I'm an engineer with a passing interest in the law. I've frequently had to explain to otherwise smart and capable people that their one weird trick will just get them a contempt charge.
Even if that wasn't directly targeted at me, I'll elaborate on my concern:
That it's possible to interpret the AGPL both ways (that the prior hack is legal, and that it is not), and that the project author could very well believe either one, suggests to me that the AGPL's terms aren't rigidly binding, but ultimately a kind of "don't do what the author thinks the license says, whatever that is".
