and still i haven't heard a single reason on why people use gpl over agpl other than "it's not necessary"

@Suiseiseki

@lucy yes basically

@lucy i always use agpl for everything cuz fuck it

@meso still waiting for hstsl

@lucy >AGPL+NIGGER, the racist tranny license

@meso all my tools are agpl and i will release the code as agpl too, not sure what flavor of cc to pick for images and music tho

@lucy cc @Suiseiseki @jihadjimmy what was the best cc

@lucy @Suiseiseki @jihadjimmy >cc meso license

@meso @Suiseiseki @lucy @jihadjimmy every time you wish to use this software you must @ meso

@lucy @meso i'll just use CC0 for everything i can, including code

@lain @meso but why?

@lucy @lain @meso

Because it's gigachad behavior

@histoire @lain @meso it's written in armv4 assembly and i was high half the time so, if someone actually has the juice to fork this code and do whatever, good for them ig?
cc @mia thoughts?

@lucy @mia @lain @meso

It's the principle of the thing

@histoire @lain @meso @mia okay actually. using agpl would legally block nintendo from publishing that game. because if the header is included, that'd violate the license. and it must be included for the code to run (unless you flash a cusotm bios).
how much of a gigachad is that?

@lucy @mia @lain @meso

Fucking Nintendo is pretty based NGL

@lucy @meso I don’t think copyright exists so I’m doing my part if I can

@lain @meso in a perfect world yes. but we live in a fucked up insane world.

@lucy It does not matter which you use for non-networking software. The only change in the whole license is in the 13th section which essentially says you must provide the source code of networked application to everyone that uses it (in the case of AGPL). The GPL does not have such wording, so if you license a networking application under the GPL and make it accessible over the network, you don't need to provide source code to those users over the network.

@lucy For example, If I ran a Pleroma instance on the Internet and it used the GPL license instead of AGPL, there wouldn't be the need for the easy source code links in the settings menu, because I could legally tell you to drive to my house if you wanted the source code instead of getting it for free over the network.

@phnt you can make any software networked. i can just fork your code and provide it as a web service.

@phnt I'll use agpl until there's an hstsl

@lucy HTTP Strict Transport Security License?

@phnt im remembering that joke lol

@meso
@lucy @Suiseiseki

Read the fucking license and you'll see why GPL makes more sense on some cases over AGPL.


The tldr is that AGPL references scenarios about remote execution software for web services that make no sense on software that is designed to run locally (like a hardware driver, for example), that's why they're two different licenses.

You can license a program that runs locally with AGPL but if legal disputes arise, a faggot judge or lawyer can pester you over things defined and described that do not correspond with the technical aspect and jeopardize the whole case over that shit if they want.


The one that should always be avoided only to annoy FAGMAN bootlickers is LGPL as it's objectively only a shittier version of GPL.

@jihadjimmy @Suiseiseki @meso any software can be provided as a web service.
and please go ahead and show me those court cases lol.

@jihadjimmy @Suiseiseki @meso one example actually does come to mind: ghostscript is agpl. and it's not a networked software per se. and someone got sued over it in court. the case was settled with the violator paying an undisclosed settlement fee.

@lucy People use GPLv3-or-later over AGPLv3-or-later as the GPLv3 is a free license, it is well known and is also named as a compatible license in some other licenses (although those licenses really don't matter).

Businesses like google cope and seethe if you license AGPLv3-or-later, as that puts a stop to their degenerate behavior where they take free software, add spyware and other malicious functionalities to it and run it on their servers - they would of course still have permission to do so under the AGPLv3-or-later, but they would just need to make the modified source code available to the suckers. But it turns out that google doesn't want to publish hard evidence of their criminal activities.

I personally license AGPLv3-or-later.

Whether you license AGPLv3-or-later or GPLv3-or-later for software that isn't really useful for SaaSS doesn't really matter in the end, as those licenses are compatible.

@lucy @jihadjimmy @meso Ghostscript is AGPLv3, although I'm not sure if it's -only or -or-later.

The AGPLv3 is quite applicable to ghostcript, as modifying ghostcript to make it part of pdf convertor SaaSS is something that falls under AGPLv3.

Most violators once taken to court stop being retarded, comply and pay a settlement, rather than have to explain to the court what license they had to modify and/or distribute the software.

@Suiseiseki what's the point of "or-later"

@lucy It allows bugs in the license to actually be fixed once found.

The legal system is not static - changes to laws are made and court rulings occur - therefore it's very important that it's possible to fix freedom bugs if a court decides to go full retard.

If only one or two developers are the copyright holders, it's not much a problem if the software is licensed -only, as upgrading the license is trivial.

But if there are dozens, hundreds or thousands of developers, upgrading the license is nigh impossible and the project soon ends up in a dead end, as the software cannot be re-used in other projects or re-use other projects.


Some people complain about the possibility of not being able to pre-review future versions of the license (despite how the drafting process is public), but there's an option to declare a proxy instead in the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 that can review future versions and determine if they're acceptable, but so far none of those naysayers I've discussed this with have taken that option - it seems they have some other agenda.