May I use AGPL license in a desktop application without providing the source code?
opensource.stackexchange.com
We develop a commercial desktop application that uses an AGPL library. The lib's code is just used, not modified. Our application runs completely offline. May we use the AGPL library without havi...

I know this feels like an odd example, but I had heard one reason to favor GPL over AGPL is because GPL has been upheld so often in court. Here is an example of AGPL working as intended though.

      •  Lengsel   ( @lengsel@latte.isnot.coffee ) English
        2•1 year ago

        For real true freedom I like the ISC license for giving away source code.

        The constant argument about companies stealing source code is a cultural problem, not a license issue. Fix the social culture in society so people have ethical standards again, and companies will start to change their amoral behaviour. Not immoral, but amoral.

        GPL are fanatics who are leeches off of other peoples work to build anything. I have wondered if that’s why GPLv3 people have never built an operating system like BSD engineers and designers, only a collection of parts from different designers and made them come together.

        There is no operating system called GNU with a kernel and native format for installing software. There is no operating system called Linux with system libraries and a format to install software built into Liux natively.

        It’s like Stallman built the body of a care and ever dealt with the engine. Linus built an engine but didn’t know how to do anything with an engine like engineer the rest of the body.

        Each BSD is it’s own operating system with their own developers. A FreeBSD kernel can’t run OpenSD libraries.

        •  surpador   ( @surpador@lemm.ee ) English
          1•1 year ago

          I think your comments about GPL vs. BSD are a bit misleading. BSD is great, by the way- I’m very glad the various free/open BSDs exist, and they can be good choices for different applications. But Linux is significantly more successful as just a kernel, and GNU is significantly more successful as a collection of libraries and utilities, and GNU/Linux is more successful as an operating system than any of the BSDs. The fact that it was put together as a collection of components written by various people was arguably one of the primary purposes of the project, so I don’t really see how that’s a mark against it.

          It also may be worth noting that BSD is not simply Unix-like, it is Unix. Your line of reasoning might end up compelling you to claim that only proprietary software engineering has lead to the development of a complete operating system.

          And finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not really)- there is a GNU-specific way to distribute and install software (GNU Guix), I use it, great package manager + OS, and you can run a complete GNU operating system (various Hurd OSes exist, but for full GNU, you can run Guix System with the Hurd). I don’t think that’s particularly important tbh (again, distributed contribution is one of the main goals of GNU and Linux), but fwiw, I think you’re also technically incorrect on this point.

          I love that there are multiple different free and open source licenses, and creators can choose which ones suit their needs, no argument there!

        •  threetimes   ( @threetimes@beehaw.org ) English
          1•1 year ago

          GPL are fanatics who are leeches off of other peoples work to build anything.

          Can you expand on this? I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that devs who release under GPL are stealing something?

        •  coolin   ( @coolin@beehaw.org ) English
          1•1 year ago

          The argument about companies stealing source code exists because companies are greedy and often take open source code, especially those under permissive licenses like BSD and MIT and use them without compensating the developer. This is problematic because they are essentially getting free labor from a community where the norm is to donate to projects that benefit you. Part of the whole reason why copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL exist is to force these companies to open source their projects so that, in the worst case scenario, even they contribute to our collective code base.

          I think it is disingenuous to claim that GNU/Linux isn’t a real operating system or is messy in some way. The whole project works very well and contains billions of dollars worth of shared labor that is available to the world for free and far exceeds the quality of any other operating system. Literally the only place it isn’t dominant in market share is on the desktop.

          Though I guess copyleft licenses are spooky Marxism. how dare people work for free towards the benefit of our collective knowledge! How dare people not make only closed source code and sell it under a corporation! This is truly awful and I have deleted all open source software from

    •  The_Terrible_Humbaba   ( @The_Terrible_Humbaba@beehaw.org ) English
      3•1 year ago

      Because the philosophy behind the two things is essentially the same.

      Here’s a text about FOSS that someone shared some days ago, which should help to understand it.

      Here’s a “summary”, through some quotes:

      The Free Software movement has been mostly killed by the corporate Open Source. (…)

      [RMS] also foresaw that if we were not the master of our software, we would quickly become the slave of the machines controlled by soulless corporations. (…)

      RMS theorised the need for the “four freedoms of software”.

      • The right to use the software at your discretion

      • The right to study the software

      • The right to modify the software

      • The right to share the software, including the modified version

      How to guarantee those freedoms ? RMS invented copyleft. A solution he implemented in the GPL license. (…)

      It is about creating and maintaining commons. Commons resources that everybody could access freely, resources that would be maintained by the community at large. (…)

      Capitalist businesses were, obviously, against copyleft. And still are. Steve Ballmer famously called the GPL a “cancer”. (…)

      Business-compatible licenses like BSD/MIT or even public domain are “Free Software” because they respect the four freedoms.

      But they can be privatised.

      And that’s the whole point. For the last 30 years, businesses and proponents of Open Source, including Linus Torvalds, have been decrying the GPL because of the essential right of “doing business” aka “privatising the common”.(…)

      Microsoft, through Github, Google and Apple pushed for MIT/BSD licensed software as the open source standard. This allowed them to use open source components within their proprietary closed products. They managed to make thousands of free software developers work freely for them. (…)

      We spent our free time developing, debugging, testing software before handing them to corporations that we rever, hoping to maybe get a job offer or a small sponsorship from them. Without Non-copyleft Open Source, there would be no proprietary MacOS, OSX nor Android. There would be no Facebook, no Amazon. (…)