Wild – A fast linker for Linux

Why does AGPL Vs MIT matter for a linker?

Corps don't want to have to release the source code for their internal forks. They could also potentially be sued for everything they link using it because the linked binaries could be "derivative works" according to a judge who doesn't know anything.

I think you should get new lawyers if this is their understanding of how software licenses work.

See for example https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

> Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.

Corps want to be able to release and use tools that take away the freedoms that GPL-family licenses provide. Often this results in duplication of effort.

This is not theoretical; it happens quite frequently. For toolchains, in particular I'm aware of how Apple (not that they're unique in this) has "blah blah open source" downloads, but often they do not actually correspond with the binaries. And not just "not fully reproducible but close" but "entirely new and incompatible features".

The ARM64 saga is a notable example, which went on for at least six months (at least Sept 2013 to March 2014). XCode 5 shipped with a closed-source compiler only for all that time.

It’s their loss

So they donate money instead of code? The project somehow benefits from the switch to MIT?

They don't have to release source for internal forks.

Is it? Because open source tools re-licensing themselves to be more permissive would seem to indicate whose loss it really is.

Hmm, my naive summary of AGPL is "If you run AGPL code in your web backend you are obliged to offer the backend source to everyone using a web client". No wonder it's explicitly forbidden at Google.

What does that mean for a linker? If you ship a binary linked with an AGPL linker you need to offer the source of the linker? Or of the program being linked?

In practice I think it's pretty much equivalent to the GPL for a linker. But I can understand why people in commercial settings are wary of this license.

Embrace, extend, extinguish. it could take about a century, but every software company (hardware maybe next century) is in the process of being swallowed by free software. Thats not to say people can’t carve out a niche and have balling corporate retreats for a while.. until the sleeping giant wakes up and rolls over you.

They do if they're AGPL licensed and the internal form software is used to provide a user facing service.

iirc the mold author wanted to make money off of it (and I dont blame him).

AGPL is avoided like the plague by big corps: same big corps are known for having money to pay for licenses and sometimes (yes, I look at you Amazon) being good at deriving value from FLOSS without giving back.

iirc AGPL was used so everyone can just use it, big biz is still compelled to buy a license. this has been done before and can be seen as one of the strategies to make money off FLOSS.

You've just made a pretty outrageous claim without evidence that would require a lot of effort on my part to refute, so I'll just go with: if you say so.

Under what circumstances would commercial companies be required to buy a license?! If they provide Linking as a Service?

They probably wont NEED a license, but --as said-- big corps dont touch AGPL with a ten foot pole because legal. So it's just to shut up legal, most likely.

This might indicate moreso that they believe they won't lose anything by the transition and users might ultimately benefit

I'm wondering if you've ever actually asked a real corporate lawyer for an opinion on anything relating to GPL licenses. The results are pretty consistent. I've made the trip on three occasions, and the response each time was: "this was not drafted by a lawyer, it's virtually ininterpretable, and it is wildly unpredictable what the consequences of using this software are."

Why do some companies engage with it then?

But then it isn’t “internal”…

Eh, all the GNU family of licenses were drafted by lawyers.

Just using any Copyleft software has no legal consequences (copyleft licenses kick in when distributing, not using them).

Instead of spreading FUD you could go read the AGPL.

Free software basically only exists because it’s subsidized by nonfree software. It also has no original ideas. Every piece of good free software is just a copy of something proprietary or some internal tool.

It’s too hard to determine what pieces of your stack interact with public-facing services, particularly in a monorepo with thousands of developers. The effort involved and the legal risk if you get it wrong makes it an easy nope. Just ban AGPL.

The effort involved, and legal risk is exactly the same as for any Copyleft license. If you don't know what your stack is doing, that is the problem -- not the license.

Do you have any kind of source for such claims?