Why isn't there an LGPL version for AGPL? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 10 hours ago by IsaamoonKHGDT_6143@lemmy.zip to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There are different versions of the GPL license, ranging from the lightweight copyleft LGPL to the strong copyleft AGPL.

But if the LGPL is a lighter copyleft version of the GPL, why isn't there a lighter copyleft version of the AGPL?

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Oinks 1 points 2 hours ago

That is basically what the EUPL is.

[-] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 hours ago

Imagine a game difficulty selection level:

easy <> normal <> hard

Easy is easier than normal. Why don't we have an easier version of hard? That's the kind of question you ask.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 1 points 57 minutes ago

The thing is this isn't a single spectrum. The requirement the AGPL adds to the GPL could be applied to the LGPL without including the requirements added by the GPL.

To take the video game analogy, it's more like asking why you can't set the brightness above 50% if the graphics quality is set to ultra.

The answer here is that the FSF likely doesn't see the utility in such a license.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago

Nah, you can have a license that says you get a cupcake and another license that says you need to give up your first-born.
And then you can mush those licenses to say that you need to give up your first-born, but you get a cupcake in return.

Unless the specific license terms contradict, this is totally possible.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

I imagine, it's just too much of a niche and practically not enforceable anyways.

You would need to somehow know that a web service is a using a modified version of your library, then you'd be able to demand those library changes to be open-sourced.

And well, just in general, covering all kinds of niche use-cases isn't terribly healthy for open-source licenses, because each modification is something that can be challenged in court and which might be incompatible with other licenses.
Ultimately, a library under such a specialty license would probably not see much use either. You could only really depend on it in AGPL applications. And at some point, you do have to ask yourself, if it's even useful to develop your library then.

[-] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 19 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

You want a weaker version of the AGPL, that's what the GPL is.

From my understanding in terms of strength between the three, it's:

LGPL (weakest) > GPL (middle of the road) > AGPL (strongest)

[-] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

came here to say the same

[-] Trying2KnowMyself@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 hours ago

Isn’t the entire point of AGPL to not be weak?

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 hours ago

AGPL is specifically for web services. For example, if Nextcloud were provided under the GPL, Amazon or the like could serve a modified version of Nextcloud without having to hand out their modifications. As far as the GPL is concerned, Amazon is the user and the software just happens to accept requests from the network.
With AGPL, those who use the software over the network are also deemed users and therefore have the right to access the source code.

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 hours ago

How would you link against a cloud service?

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

I imagine, the scenario would be that the cloud service links against a library under the supposed new license.
And then, even if you're just using the cloud service over the network, you can demand changes to the source code of that library to be open-sourced.