Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NihAV Is An Experimental Multimedia Framework Written In Rust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    I couldn't say. It was a cluster setup and you could toggle services on each node... It's possible some services were mutually exclusive, I don't remember that part too well.

    I'm also not sure that is a loophole. If AGPL allows you to use AGPL code over some interfaces, why not assume that was intended?
    The way I understand it is when the AGPL was written web services weren't as widely used as they are now so a lot of companies take advantage of the fact that there aren't any license restrictions if machine A runs data through all the closed source code and sends those results to machine B to run them through the AGPL code.

    Some of the newer licenses explicitly forbid or grant that kind of usage which is why some call it a loophole in older licenses.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    I don't know about fair, but it makes it useless in corporate environments where you as a developer does have the power to decide to offer the core platform service offered as a software as a service for free.

    But in my private life, I do like GPL for software, and LGPL for libraries, I also like MIT/X11/ISC/BSD license.
    ...and, often, AGPL is chosen because the people involved are offering a paid licensing alternative and explicitly thinking "Code or cash. If they're using it in a commercial project, I want them to pay something back."

    Same way you see some stuff intended for building native apps offering a "GPL or paid licensing" choice.

    Certainly better than the old "Personal use only. All others must buy a license." terms of things from the 90s like ZoneAlarm Firewall.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    I don't know about fair, but it makes it useless in corporate environments where you as a developer does have the power to decide to offer the core platform service offered as a software as a service for free.

    But in my private life, I do like GPL for software, and LGPL for libraries, I also like MIT/X11/ISC/BSD license.
    Well, yes, various pieces of software are useless in various contexts. Not sure that point is worth raising.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Basically you're upset at any piece of software you can't integrate.
    Unfortunately for you, some software creators offer their work for free and in return they ask if you integrate it, you also offer your work for free. Do you think that's unfair?
    I don't know about fair, but it makes it useless in corporate environments where you as a developer does have the power to decide to offer the core platform service offered as a software as a service for free.

    But in my private life, I do like GPL for software, and LGPL for libraries, I also like MIT/X11/ISC/BSD license.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
    It's interesting to me that an article about Rust turned into a licensing discussion.
    As opposed to the typical forums discussion that sticks to the subject for entire pages, right?
    Me, I'm surprised it didn't go the "Intel/Nvidia is evil" or the "KDE vs Gnome" route.

    Also you posted first and you mentioned nothing but AGPL

    Leave a comment:


  • wswartzendruber
    replied
    It's interesting to me that an article about Rust turned into a licensing discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    Because when I am at work where I develop a commercial software as a service that we sell on a subscription I can't integrate AGPL software.
    Basically you're upset at any piece of software you can't integrate.
    Unfortunately for you, some software creators offer their work for free and in return they ask if you integrate it, you also offer your work for free. Do you think that's unfair?

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    But if the company could use the AGPL software we would use it, and I would file issues on GitHub, file pull requests, join the community, improve the documentation, etc. But since it is AGPL we end up not using it at all.
    And the creator of the software is entirely within their rights to decide they value one more than the other. You don't have a right to use the fruits of their labour for free.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by Spam View Post

    This is why I LIKE AGPL. Though most things I produce is AGPL, GPL or CC-BY-SA.
    But if the company could use the AGPL software we would use it, and I would file issues on GitHub, file pull requests, join the community, improve the documentation, etc. But since it is AGPL we end up not using it at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spam
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post

    Because when I am at work where I develop a commercial software as a service that we sell on a subscription I can't integrate AGPL software.
    This is why I LIKE AGPL. Though most things I produce is AGPL, GPL or CC-BY-SA.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X