I haven’t read up on AGPL. How does it differ from GPLv3? :)
MIT f.e. would allow corporations to take the code and profit from it. GPLv3 would ensure that the funding from the EU would go to projects that remains open source and free.
AGPL is like GPL, but it also makes sure the source code of programs used via a network is available to the user.
Example: company provides a cloud service. The user uses that service via the internet. If the license of the service is GPL, the company doesn’t have to give the user the source code, but with the AGPL they do.
Maybe the EU could fund only projects under strong copyleft licenses?
I like the idea of public funds supporting code that stays public, which strong copyleft license is used doesn’t matter much to me to be honest.
The big thing would be if the EU helped litigate license breakers and not only fund the projects.
Sorry I replied to the wrong comment in the thread.
Let me try to explain.
GPL was designed to give users access to the source code for hardware they control.
This worked pretty well until TiVo came up with locks that would only allow you to run kernels they signed. This was to prevent people from putting in cheap disks to their hardware.
So GNU came up with GPLv3, which closes the TiVo hole. It also tried to address the evils of software patents to an extent.
That works okay, but then people invented SaaS (software as a service). In that case the user doesn’t own the hardware, so companies don’t have to publish the source under GPL. Which meets the letter of the license and gives a big middle finger to the intent.
So AGPLv3 was developed to close that hole. With AGPL users must have access to any open source run by a service to provide them with that service, restoring the ability of users to see what the code is doing, and possibly forking and making their own version if it doesn’t do what they want.
I haven’t read up on AGPL. How does it differ from GPLv3? :)
MIT f.e. would allow corporations to take the code and profit from it. GPLv3 would ensure that the funding from the EU would go to projects that remains open source and free.
AGPL is like GPL, but it also makes sure the source code of programs used via a network is available to the user.
Example: company provides a cloud service. The user uses that service via the internet. If the license of the service is GPL, the company doesn’t have to give the user the source code, but with the AGPL they do.
Maybe the EU could fund only projects under strong copyleft licenses?
I like the idea of public funds supporting code that stays public, which strong copyleft license is used doesn’t matter much to me to be honest.
The big thing would be if the EU helped litigate license breakers and not only fund the projects.
I fully agree, they should support FOSS projects on all fronts, not just the code itself (though the code is the most important part).
Btw, you might want to take a look at Public money, public code
AGPL is the superior license!
That truly explains the differences between the licenses, thank you shane.
Sorry I replied to the wrong comment in the thread.
Let me try to explain.
GPL was designed to give users access to the source code for hardware they control.
This worked pretty well until TiVo came up with locks that would only allow you to run kernels they signed. This was to prevent people from putting in cheap disks to their hardware.
So GNU came up with GPLv3, which closes the TiVo hole. It also tried to address the evils of software patents to an extent.
That works okay, but then people invented SaaS (software as a service). In that case the user doesn’t own the hardware, so companies don’t have to publish the source under GPL. Which meets the letter of the license and gives a big middle finger to the intent.
So AGPLv3 was developed to close that hole. With AGPL users must have access to any open source run by a service to provide them with that service, restoring the ability of users to see what the code is doing, and possibly forking and making their own version if it doesn’t do what they want.
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my sarcastic response. :)