Less restrictive license?


#1

So I do love Octoprint, however I can't use agpl at work, it is forbidden. I could use one of many other licenses, I cannot use the one it is released under currently.

Any comments?


#2

What kind of place would ban open-sourced software other than Google?

The Affero GPL is designed to close the so-called "application service provider loophole" in the GPL, which lets ASPs use GPL code without distributing their changes back to the open source community. Under the AGPL, if you use code in a web service, you required to open source it.

It seems like AGPL prevents "takers" like Google from grabbing the code, developing a closed-sourced service offering around it and then not giving back to the community.


#3

what has your work todo with octoprint?


#4

I wonder who it could be...?

Not that I speak for foosel, but in my mind a large corporation that has a problem with open source licensing has every right to not enjoy the fruits of someone else's free labor. I would love to hear what she has to say about it, though.


#5

Sure, OTOH it's nice to have an open source license that is friendly enough to let commerical companies use it. I'd rather see ECorp using Octoprint than developing ECorpPrint.


#6

My main beef is with companies like the one who created my own 3D printer. They abused the APGL licensing with a lot of shenanigans and internally, they know it. I won't go into the details but it's not honest what they did.


#7

AGPL does prevent takers, however if you read AGPL carefully there is no extent that limits what has to be open sourced.

Technically Every sliced file that goes through octoprint should be open sourced under the AGPL V3 license.

Now nobody does that, but if you read though the license that is legally what you should be held to. Do you think that is reasonable?

And there are dozen of permitted licenses. There are only 15 Forbidden opensource licenses.


#8

Who said it has to be free? I didn't say i couldn't get someone to pay for it, i asked if it was possible to get a more permissive license.


#9

We own a printer in the hardware development lab. I want to put octoprint on it. AGPL V3 is Banned because of the fact i has no limit to what extent the license must be applied. Legally you cant slice files without opensource them based upon the current license.


#10

I completely agree. I want to use the software within the license. The problem with AGPL V3 specifically is that you cant actually use it on anything with out everything that touches it being AGPL V3.

I completely respect that choice. I just cant use it at work. The infectious license is the problem. MIT or other non infectious license get used by many people. I just cant use AGPL.

Just to check your character on this. Have you made any modifications or built any ad-ons for this? If you have did you open source every single code change and publish them under AGPL V3.


#11

i think you don't understand licensing at all :wink:

technically the sliced files have not to be released.
Because Cura as an example is LGPL Slic3r is AGPL.

But the license is only for the source code. A stl or Gcode file has nothing todo with the source code.
The connection between the slicers and octoprint is also working with API.

You see an elephant were no is ...


#12

Either way, i am not allowed to use it, I am asking for a version i could use. If that is not possible that is fine. I have tried to get approval, but i can't so this is a request to make a version i could use a work. If i cant, that is fine, it is still a good product i will still continue to support it, i just cant use it at work.


#13

I don't get it why you couldn't use it when you do no modifications you don't have to release it.
Also if you write a plugin you don't have to release it and you can choose your own licensing.
You only have to release when you change the octoprint source code

Btw which operating systems are used at you company ?
Or do you use any adobe product?
Or are PDF files allowed ?
Or Ubuntu?

Then you have the same problem they are all using AGPL licenses :wink:


#14

Based upon what you've indicated, the easy path to success is to slice in Simplify3D or some other software which costs money and your indicated problem is solved. You wouldn't then be strong-armed into publishing your GCODE if you didn't want to. If your company doesn't agree that this is a solution, then so be it. (Their lawyers' children need braces and that's that.)

As you've already hinted, nobody really slices in OctoPrint anyway. Anyone who's gotten past the basics of CAD design left the embedded slicer for the control that they get with a stand-alone slicer. Why not uninstall the Cura plugin from the software?

I think that foosel's awesome for making a brilliant, useful tool for myself and the world. Her generosity then reverberates with me and makes me want to give back freely as she's done. I recently turned my back upon a software development gig at a company which stole from her and hid behind a fortress of private repositories, shipping over two million printers as they did so. If I'm defensive, then at least you know the reason why.

But these are my own opinions and are not those of OctoPrint nor foosel. Check in with her.


#15

Ubuntu is used, but the parts of the build that are under AGPL V3 are either removed or exemptions are granted,

Not all AGPL is band Specifically AGPL V3 is banned.

Open souce software is allowed and encouraged, we have a process of upstream contributions and feeding back to the community,

AGPL V3 is banned.


#16

I completely agree, I do not want to do any of that, i simply want to install the software,

Simplified doesn't do hosting. i have spent months trying to get an exemption, no i am asking for a permissive license that is actually opensource, not just free.


#17

lauchpad is still agpl and all the packages are build with that.
With your logic you are not allowed to use ubuntu because a agpl software was used to create the packages ...


#18

I'm an old coder. There was a time where you could actually approach Microsoft and purchase access to the source code of Windows 3.1, say, from them. You could then internally understand what's going on under-the-hood and develop solutions around it. I'm reasonably certain that people at Norton Anti-Virus did just that; they needed to intimately understand the system.

That said, it was a hefty price tag at the time. I recall that being around $125K back in those days. None of that allowed you to make your own Windows software with respect to the rights you were purchasing.


#19

1998-2001 IIRC we were paying around US$ 50k per year to have access to the sources "on-demand" (we mostly needed to work around windows bugs in network, usb and hw serial system) .. that was some years after win3.x :smiley: .. company did have relationship with M$ back during win3.x too but I was not working for them attm :smiley: .. but I'm not sure how this relates to OP's question for a version of octoprint with different licence?

Licencing restriction can be hard in big systems, I work for O....e for e.g. and I had to request a written permission 9 years ago to work on reprap project and contribute to it. It was, of course, granted immediately without too much fuss but the whole idea that you have to ask is the "big company" bo...hit many of us need to deal with :frowning: .. if there is a policy that licence XYZ is denied you can very very very very hardly change that... some systems have list of apps you can't use :smiley: .. (e.g. I can't use skype, or for e.g. in Sun Microsystems it was forbidden to use M$ Outlook), some lists of licences.. there's no point figuring out "why" is that in place and trying to explain how it doesn't make sense .. someone put it in place (for whatever reason) and end of story :frowning:


#20

Why would you slice with Octoprint?! I doubt that slicing part is the problem if the AGPLv3 is forbidden no matter what you use app for you can't use it but the slicing part, why in the name of skeinforge you want to slice on octoprint :smiley: ... and how does octoprint's licence affect anything since octoprint will use cura or slic3r to actually slice the file so wrt g-code files itself you need to check cura/slic3r licences, not octoprint's one :smiley: ... octoprint (ignoring plugins) is not modifying your g-code so it's just playing it hence no licence of octoprint can affect your g-code files, now if your plugins modify it - maybe can't say, but..

It really depends on how you implement the ban in the company, if there is a case by case I'm sure the case can be made. In situation, on the other side, when there's just a list what's banned, you are ^&@$ :frowning: ..

As for the licence choice, I believe AGPLv3 is probbly the best licence choice for Octoprint as it's the only one preventing "me" to create a paid service out of octoprint (lavaprint, worldprint, astronomyprint..) without sharing my modifications to the octoprint.. and I'm sure there's ton of them that would do it at instant ..