[jrv]

What I don't like about changes like this is that it makes it impossible to reuse any Grafana/Loki/Tempo pieces or libraries in any more permissively-licensed code without forcing that whole project into the AGPL as well. That doesn't only hinder competitors (which seems to be the legitimate goal), but also hinders interoperability and an open ecosystem evolving where people freely exchange bits and pieces of code to make things work together. I know that some parts of the codebases have been exempted from these changes (see https://twitter.com/TwitchiH/status/1384566382180896769), but those are only some, and they may change over time...

[josephcsible]

IMO, the ideal end-state from a software freedom perspective is that all software becomes AGPL. This change is a step in that direction, not only with the directly affected products, but for the reasons you mentioned, an additional pressure for more things to switch to it. Do you not like that end goal, or do you just think the side effects of the change outweigh the benefits of getting closer to it?

[jrv]

I think it's both a completely unrealistic end goal (we live in the real world), and I also think that the AGPL puts you into a hole where you can never get out of again if you decided that you now need different constraints. So I really much more prefer permissive licenses.

Funnily just before you wrote this comment, I also tweeted just that :) : https://twitter.com/juliusvolz/status/1384599249082626052

[quadrangle]

The ideal end-state is simply software freedom for everyone, no more proprietary software — and also no more malicious actions in the world, world peace, and universal love and compassion.

I do sincerely share these ideals, but which paths get us how far with which real-world trade-offs, that's more complex.

For ideal policy, I like this direction: abolishing copyright and patent law and replacing them with (A) mandatory source-release for all published works that need source in order to practically study and modify and (B) prohibition on DRM or other measures that technically limit freedoms.

[rocqua]

Wasn't the end goal of copyleft that all software becomes GPL 3 a few years ago? When will this stop? Why does 'freedom' in the Gnu sense require coercing all developers to use the same license?

[pvorb]

I think that by putting your software under AGPL the only effect you'll see is that it will be used less.

[jblwps]

> What I don't like about changes like this is that it makes it impossible to reuse any Grafana/Loki/Tempo pieces or libraries in any more permissively-licensed code

They're not making everything AGPL and seem to be aware of the kind of thing you're talking about. From TFA (emphasis mine):

> Going forward, we will be relicensing our core open source projects (Grafana, Grafana Loki, and Grafana Tempo) from the Apache License 2.0 to the Affero General Public License (AGPL) v3. Plugins, agents, and certain libraries will remain Apache-licensed. You can find information in GitHub about what is being relicensed for Grafana, Loki, and Tempo.

[varajelle]

>™it makes it impossible to reuse any Grafana/Loki/Tempo pieces or libraries in any more permissively-licensed code without forcing that whole project into the AGPL as well.

While the whole project must be available under the AGPL, nothing prevent individual pieces to be under a more permissive but compatible license.