Thread by @swardley

X : What do you think of AGPL?
Me : IMHO, radioactive. Haven't changed my view since 2008 - blog.gardeviance.org/2008/05/data-p…
Personally, I view better licenses are GPL (keeps the SaaS loophole, which is important) or Apache (more commercially friendly).

X : What's wrong with AGPL?
Me : It's a way of poisoning a market in cloud and forcing others to buy a secondary license (i.e. the originator can dual license) in order to compete on operations. Not a fan, don't like it, still don't. The SaaS loophole wasn't a bug but a feature.

X : The AGPL enables ...
Me : Do you map?
X : No
Me : Then you almost certainly don't understand context, competition and why that matters to licenses. This conversation is pointless until you do.

X : I don't understand why?
Me : Did I mutter about mapping? Look, Apache is useful generally as it's permissive. GPL was ideal because it's permissive for service but restrictive for product distribution. AGPL is just restrictive.
X : But the loophole ...
Me : arghh.

Me : Look, there are better ways of controlling a market through GPL and trademarked images related to some certification / testing offering. AGPL is just restrictive, it leads to a dual licensing path that is not helpful to competition.
X : But ...
Me : Go away, learn to map.

X : How about as part of a Tower and Moat play?
Me : You're now just spouting words. If you want to learn tower and moat, I've got a load of old posts circa 2006-2010, go dig them up. To play that game effectively you really have to understand context. Nowt to do with licensing.

X : I don't understand why the SaaS loophole is a benefit?
Me : Heaven help me. Long ago, I warned OpenStack about differentiating on APIs and creating a collective prisoner dilemma.
X : What's wrong with OpenStack and what has this go to do with licenses?
Me : Context.

... look, the effectiveness of licenses, gameplays and even methods varies with context. In one context differentiation makes sense, in others it doesn't. Ditto with how you deal with products and services. The SaaS loophole was not a bug but a feature with good reasons.

... let us keep this simple. Think of an Agile method like XP. It works well with the uncharted, the novel and new. It is less effective than six sigma with the industrialised. To keep it really simple here's a map from 2011.

... now think of competition. In the earlier stages of evolution where competition is on features, you want a restrictive license (i.e. force sharing of changes) but when it's more utility you want to allow competition on operation (i.e. be permissive)

... this is what GPL and SaaS loophole allowed, dual restrictive and permissive nature. It's why when Eben was writing GPLv3, I argued for it. Apache just creates permissive across the lot which is ok and more commercially friendly. AGPL solves a "bug" that was a feature.

... we knew this stuff and how to play the game circa 2005-2008. AGPL is just a way of trying to solve a competition problem through not understanding competition and a magic license fix. Obviously if the debate is kicking off again ... oh, it's late and this is so tedious.

X : What does that mean?
Me : It means go use AGPL if you wish. I've had these conversations so many times before in open source, all the way to OpenStack and APIs and others that ... I've got more important things to concern myself with. I've no interest in rehashing old ground.

X: I don't understand the dual nature of GPL?
Me : I think I'm going to cry. You want people to make operational improvements in utility competition (permit) without forcing them to share unless they attempt to flog these improvements as part of a product (restrict).

X : Wouldn't it be better to force sharing of operational improvements?
Me : Only if your goal is to kill off competition in utility space hence AGPL is radioactive as service providers will require another license - the purpose of AGPL - dual licenses rather than dual nature.

X : I think you're wrong.
Me : Fine. Well, I've been wrong for over a decade then and I'm quite used to people who don't understand context telling me I'm wrong on context. Do what you wish. I've no interest.

X : Why do you prefer GPLv3 over Apache?
Me : Either is fine. Apache is permissive across the lot and more commercially friendly. GPLv3 has a more purposeful nature which I prefer. Both have their uses but most I know stick with Apache because it's simple.

X : Do you see no purpose to AGPL?
Me : Of course I do. If I want to poison a space and limit competition then I'll use AGPL.