The AGPL Revolution Starts… When?
The GPL is widely known and used, and like most things with that kind of visibility and reputation it has plenty of supporters and critics; and then along comes the AGPL.
GPL / AGPL Basics
The GPL is a very strong copy-left licence, created by Richard Stallman to oppose what he saw as the antisocial and unethical intent of proprietary software licenses (and their vendors). For a long time the natural ‘enemy’ of the GPL was Microsoft (and perhaps for many it still is), however, in recent years (following the decline of the desktop in favour of the web) the likes of Google are emerging as the new monopoly (Monopoly 2.0, perhaps?).
The GPL certainly “deals” well in scenarios where developers modify existing code and pass it on: the act of distribution triggers the need to make the new source code available, defeating any hope of maintaining a monopoly. But that isn’t so relevant today – if you accept that web-based software is of at least the same importance as desktop based software.
If you use free and open source software for your website (i.e. anything provided under the GPL), you’re not obliged to release your modifications; and it’s via this “SaaS Loophole” that many successful companies (mini-monopolies?) have built themselves, as discussed by Brian Richard in “The GPL Has No (Networked) Future”.
Even if you’re only moderately well read on open source there’s a good chance you know all that already. You might also know about the AGPL (or Affero Clause) and the battle around closing this loop-hole; so am I - but what I’m still trying to figure out is where we’re at now.
So What Happened?
The AGPL ‘issue’ really hit the blogosphere in mid 2007 when the Free Software Foundation aborted attempts to include “Affero like” clauses in the GPL itself. The official GPLv3 was finally released in June 2007, with the first version of the AGPL released in November the same year (called v3 (or strictly speaking the GNU AGPLv3) for parity with the GNU GPLv3).
Since then, nothing particularly drastic appears to have happened – until mid 2008; in March of that year the GNU AGPLv3 became an OSI approved Open Source Licence, and then in April 2008 Google made it clear that AGPL licensed projects weren’t welcome.
Chris Di Bona, the Open Source Programs Manager at Google, made some new enemies (and some new friends) when he made their position clear.
“Basically the answer is when I, Fitz, Greg or the team think it is
popular enough. I know you guys think we don't like it for nefarious
reasons, but what you're missing is we dislike -all- new licenses that
are unpopular. They lead to bifurcation of the open source development
world and that is a high price to pay.
I personally think the AGPL is deeply flawed, and I've commented on
that on my own blog and on others, but that really -doesn't- matter.
If the AGPL gets to be popular, like lgpl or bsd popular, than we'll
certainly offer it as an option on code.google.com, but until then,
it'll be a judgment call on our part. One you might not agree on, but
that's okay.”
Taken from: http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_thread/thread/1714c5c0ef5d9f9f/7d59a938d295bb8f
Dated, 11 April 2008.
For extra reading on the fallout see:
The whole Google / AGPL issue is an enjoyable sub-plot – if you’re into mud flinging; however, whilst Google make it clear why they don’t support AGPL licensed projects (on code.google.com) the logic behind it isn’t so clear. Yes the AGPL might be yet another OSS licence – but it includes a very unique clause which makes it particularly relevant in today’s networked world. Not to forget, or course, that its directly and closely related to the GPL (v3) - surely that would make it worthy of inclusion.
By December 2008 the AGPL popularity was on the rise: “Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects per month.” (http://autonomo.us/2008/12/agpl-dfsg-free/).
In October 2008 http://gpl3.blogspot.com/search?q=AGPL reported that “The AGPL v3 count is at 181 AGPL v3 projects”. It’s not immediately obvious when they started counting or how accurate this number is, in any case that was their last batch of figures, because “in October 2008, our research project was hit with the same economic crunch that has been affecting businesses throughout our country”. Ouch.
Black Duck Software has also been monitoring adoption rates of the AGPL (alongside the GPLv3 and LGPL), and they have figures from June 2007 through November 2009 – topping out at 228 (they record 48 AGPL projects for April 2008).
I’m not sure if that’s the sort of adoption rate that will have Google accepting AGPL projects anytime soon.
But wait, there's more.
Another interesting development in the whole Open Source landscape was around October 2007 when the OSI approved two Microsoft Open Source Licenses: the Ms-PL and Ms-RL. Given Microsoft’s commitment to Open Source and that the AGPL should clearly be on every major player’s radar (as either an iceberg to be avoided or a bus to jump on) I starting to wonder if a Microsoft based “Affero like” license would be a good idea.
It certainly would be from my perspective. I’d happily use the AGPL for my project (Morphfolia), but I can’t as I’m using the Microsoft Enterprise Libraries which are licensed under the Ms-PL - which is incompatible with the AGPL and GPL.
Even though the GPL is clearly the worlds most widely adopted open source license, it’s not the only one; clearly there is plenty of room for more “Affero like” open source licenses – Microsoft based or otherwise.
I recently emailed Brian and asked him if he had an updated view on the issue, his response was no; in his opinion the percentage of software that people use on a daily basis, software for which they have no code access, will only increase.
In closing, it would appear that one of the main obstacles for truly wide-spread adoption of “Affero like” licenses is, perhaps, human nature; as Brian Richards pointed out: “The problem with the SaaS loophole is that it’s a terribly popular way of circumventing the GPL.” In other-words people like stuff that’s free, particularly when free means exclusive; and while we are on the subject of AGPL adoption and monopolies make sure you read "Facebook opens up, but misses opening".
|