This reads more like a general diatribe against AGPLv3 than a critique of the program.

I don't like GPL licenses myself, I prefer BSD/MIT/etc.

But that aside, this has very little to do with this program, and it very little (if any) impediment to using this kind of program.

It might prevent a company from building a commercial closed source version (which is fine, we have plenty of commercial DAWs already), and it might prevent a company from somehow turning this into SaaS. Both of those seem like very remote and unlike possibilities, even if this was non GPLv3.

"I don't like GPL licenses myself, I prefer BSD/MIT/etc."

The GPL may deserve some criticism from a business point of view, but how many of the businesses that criticize it openly, or attempt to dodge it covertly, were brought to success thanks to developers who could become what they are by studying and modifying code that without the GPL would have never been published?

Such as?

It's actually a common misconception: that companies publish code because GPL forces them to. In practice, it works the other way around: first you make the decision whether to publish the code or not, only then you choose software with appropriate license.

This is definitely a limitation of AGPL: you cannot interact with it (VST) unless your interactions are also public and free.

A program (DAW) that is built on integrating with third party code but limits what code you can integrate with is rather contradictory.

How does it limit what code you are allowed to integrate with? Do you think that running someone else's code on your machine obliges you to somehow acquire the code to the module that you loaded and share it somehow?

It does when the license says so. Of course, such a document cannot override the local law, and it might be hard to enforce.

For the AGPL, you cannot link against something that isn't also (A)GPL. That means that if you integrate it any tighter than 'running it standalone on an OS' you're probably linking it.

In order to run afoul of it don't you have to provide it to another user either by distributing it or making it available as a service?

Isn't that the entire model of commercial VST plugins?

I believe that such plugins are run locally by the user who then delivers the edited sound file. You know as opposed to being run as SAAS.

It's certainly a critique of the AGPL. I was just rather shocked to see the AGPL here, of all places. It doesn't make any sense, and it puts me off of considering it as a general free software DAW, and more in the same category as the proprietary plug-ins that I use (because there's no FOSS alternative). I'll use them, but not consider them a community project I can contribute to.

It may not be obvious how the AGPL would impact your ability to use a DAW, but it does. Just two days ago I was at band practice with a band I play in, and we decided that for one song the guitarist, who didn't have a part on it, would play a synth running on my computer, via a MIDI keyboard. That's a computer network by most definitions. That means the guitarist is now a user of the software on my computer. I was using Carla (LGPLed) as a plug-in host, but had I been using this instead, I would've been obligated to inform him of the fact and offer the source code.

In other words, this means I would never consider using this DAW in a live environment with any external interaction at all (no inputs other than my own, that includes no microphones or analog inputs that might pick up third party signals), lest I become legally obligated to start explaining what I'm running and where to get the source to everyone around me.

Now I bet the authors of this software didn't think of such use cases and don't care about them - and this is why the AGPL is evil, because it encroaches on users' rights well beyond you might think at first glance.

I think you are wrong. If you don't modify the software then GPL compliance is not your job. If you modified the software AND you distribute it you need to have the modifications available somewhere so the users of the software can get them.

I mean I seen proprietary and open source software prompting a license popup or message so you are informed that this program offers no warranty etc , when you use a proprietary tool and lend your device to your friend do you also make the argument that your friend did not clicked the proprietary EULA or he did not read the MIT/BSD disclaimers and you first make them read those licenses/EULAs?

Open source software prompting a license popup is actually an anti-pattern, a common mistake. Open source software under a license like the GPL or MIT/BSD should never throw it in a click-through EULA in the installer, because those licenses are copyright licenses, and the disclaimers aren't legal requirements to use the software (you don't need to agree to them to use it, they are just legal boilerplate).

However, the AGPL is an EULA, so in fact it should be included in click-through screens in insallers, unlike every other open source license.

The AGPL doesn't require you to distribute modifications only if you distribute the software (that would be a copyright-based requirement and it's what the GPL does). It requires you to distribute modifications if you offer access to the software. That's a huge difference. And as I wrote in the other comment below, the interpretation of "making medications" is horrendously ambiguous, and can be interpreted in two way: in one way, the AGPL doesn't offer any protections over the GPL (so it's useless), and in the other way, every user of the software is using a "modified version" and thus required to offer it to any downstream users they provide access to the app to.

If you offer me access to the software doesn't this mean that I am a user of the software and I should be entitled to see the source code ?

My understanding is that AGPL solves a real problem, people modifying GPL software and using loopholes to not give the modifications back to the community, is there a better license that fixes same problem and offers the maximum rights to the users (not maximum power to the developers)

Locally running the software doesn't force any obligation upon you. Running a modified version of it that other end users interact with does. Before you engage in modifying the source code it behooves you to read the license to discover what you are allowed to do with it thus it needs to click through license at first run.

You only have to make the source code available if you run a modified version of an AGPL app. And you have to make the source code available to the user of the app, not give a medium with the source code to any user that communicate with the modified software each time they do.

This is a broken argument when you consider how the AGPL interacts transitively.

If this argument is based on users not modifying the code themselves, then you could use this loophole:

* I make changes to an AGPL app and distribute it to you

* You take my version verbatim and run it as a SaaS. You do not have to provide the source, as you yourself didn't modify it.

If this is the case, then the AGPL is meaningless, and equivalent to the GPL.

Alternatively, the "modified version" property persists across distribution. In this case, any time a third party contributes code upstream (without copyright assignment), they would be making upstream itself become a "modified version" in perpetuity. There is no concept of "upstream" in the license itself to provide an out here.

If this is the case, all users of the software are required to disclose that fact to their network users and provide source.

So pick your poison. Either the AGPL is broken and equivalent to the GPL, or it actually requires all users to follow the requirements of that section, regardless of whether they themselves have modified the code.

The real answer here is that the AGPL is a horribly vague license, the SaaS viral provision is extremely poorly written, nobody knows what it'll mean when interpreted by a judge, and you just should never use it. It's a bad license. A bad EULA.

I think the obligation would attach to the user running the service regardless of whether they were the person who made the modification. Looking at the actual text I see

>License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

Logically you would be liable for providing a copy of the software running to your users and he or she would be liable to provide source to you. Merely placing more links in the chain wouldn't abrogate someone either you or they from sharing their modifications.

I think you should read more about the licence before criticizing it so harshely. AGPL was created as an answer of this exact loophole that existed in the original GPL.

Not saying that those licences are perfect an there is definitely grey areas, but what you are stating is not true.

Please read my comment more carefully before claiming what I said isn't true.

The "loophole" in the GPL is that you can modify the software, then only provide access to it, not a copy of it, and the users do not need to receive the modified software, because the GPL is a copyright license and has no bearing on what you can and cannot do as long as you don't copy the software itself.

(Whether this is a "loophole" or a desirable property is very much open to individual opinion)

What the AGPL does is say "Aha! If you modify the software and make it remotely available to users, then you must share your changes with them anyway!". And thus the loophole now becomes: modify the software, give it to someone (but nobody else), and then they can provide access to it as a service, without distributing the software itself, because they didn't modify it so the clause doesn't apply to them.

But maybe your interpretation (of the very vague clause 13 of the AGPL) is that the fact that the software was modified "sticks" even after you give it to someone else. In that case, as soon as anyone contributes changes upstream, then upstream becomes a "modified" version and all users of the software are now required to offer source code to anyone they provide access to it to, regardless of whether they themselves have modified it.

So you get to decide: either the AGPL can be trivially bypassed, or it actually requires all users of the software (in normal open source contribution models) to prominently advertise that to anyone they offer remote access to, modified or not. What's your interpretation? What will a judge's be? Neither of the two are what was intended, anyway.

Logically what you actually do is you ask a lawyer to tell you what a judge would probably say in order to spend merely hundreds to low thousands instead of 10s of hundreds of thousands embroiled in lawsuits.

You could also spend nothing and adhere to the strictest letter and spirit of the law instead of trying to get away with something.

Let's be real, nobody is going to SWAT you for not telling your guitarist friend about software licenses. It's really a non-issue; if you want to get particular about such things that is certainly your prerogative. But if that's not your cup of tea, then just don't worry about it.

"It's a non-issue" is not really a good approach to take to software licenses. The point of licenses is that they should be followed, and they should be written so that following them does not unduly burden your users. It doesn't make much sense to pick a license expecting your users to break it in ways you don't care about.

I'm not the one who licensed this software this way, so your complaints are misdirected. I'm just pointing out the practical reality of the situation, that if you were to violate the license in the way you describe, nothing bad would happen to you.

If it's the principle of the matter that concerns you, then fine. But if you're concerned by the possibility of actual consequences, then your concern is misplaced.

If its a non-issue, then the license would not include these clauses.

You could argue the exact same way about the exact thing the AGPL was created against: "Let's be real, nobody is going to SWAT you for not telling your SaaS users about software licenses for things you use on your server..." I mean, who'll know, right?

To me free usage of the software means I can use a piece of software in any fashion I use for any purpose I use it. I cannot understand how the requirement to share your modifications prevents any lawful or reasonable use.

Most end users don't modify their software after all.

The sole and only wrinkle is that a requirement to share your code may in some instances keep you from adding some secret sauce to the software, using it to derive profit, and not sharing it with the party that created 99% of the value by providing you the software in the first place. Which seems to be literally complaining that it works as intended.

If we accept the premise of copyright and licensing software in the first place I'm not sure where you derive the justification for complaining that they are merely interested in giving you some rights to their efforts and not others. After all they could give you none. Regarding existing free software you already can't take GPL software and make it part of your AGPL software. The kind of software that can be incorporated in AGPL software is software that is allowed by license to be incorporated with software that adds additional restrictions like BSD licensed software.

Many would term that "more free" but would somehow manage to differentiate between taking "more free" software and using it to build proprietary software that gives downstream no privileges and taking "more free" software and using it to build software with restrictions that gives some privileges and somehow find the latter wanting.