Xeokit & AGPL - Not quite free and not really Free Software?

edited November 2020 in General
This discussion was created from comments split from: AEC Free Software directory.

Comments

  • Anyone know about xeolabs and their statement "The xeokit SDK is licensed under the Affero GPL V3 license with the option to buy
    a license for commercial use." https://github.com/xeokit/xeokit-bim-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
    I was about to add their xeokit-bim-viewer when I spotted that and thought it was odd.

  • @duncan yeah I've chatted with the xeokit dev about this in the past. The result is that it's not actually free software, since the user does not have the right to use it for any purpose (i.e. commercial).

  • What's open source? GPL? AGPL is just an improvement of GPL

    See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#AGPL
    The GNU Affero General Public License is based on the GNU GPL, but has an additional term to allow users who interact with the licensed software over a network to receive the source for that program. We recommend that people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network.

    In your view, even GPL is not open source

    However, personally, I'm not a fan of xeokit

  • edited November 2020

    xeokit is not pure AGPL. It is "AGPL, except when used commercially, then you need a commercial license". Therefore, it is not free software. If it is was pure AGPL, no problem.

  • @Moult If I'm wrong please educate me, but as far as I know GPL says, you can use the resource in open source projects, but if you use it commercially you have to buy the license
    There's another view, that I'm not sure about, that says you can use the resource commercially and don't care

  • @ReD_CoDE a software license depends on its author choice. In xeokit's case, it's not pure AGPL. It's AGPL with exception. I think that is clear enough.

  • Does AGPL allow for that exception? Specific licenses can't necessarily be combined with specific choices. If you're legally free to access and run the code then asking for money makes no sense.

    "The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases [software used on network servers], the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version."

  • @ReD_CoDE said:
    @Moult If I'm wrong please educate me, but as far as I know GPL says, you can use the resource in open source projects, but if you use it commercially you have to buy the license

    Incorrect. Central to all Free Software licenses is "the freedom to use the software for any purpose"

  • @Moult said:
    @duncan yeah I've chatted with the xeokit dev about this in the past. The result is that it's not actually free software, since the user does not have the right to use it for any purpose (i.e. commercial).

    I thought I remembered us talking about it once before. Maybe it was in chat. I couldn't find anything in this forum about them. Is there anything we can do to help them avoid misusing the AGPL? It's a serious problem if someone starts using it in development for commercial projects knowing they are AGLP compliant and not realizing that their project is not legal.

  • @duncan I think it's vitally important to have some wiki pages about the licenses

    iosvarms
  • @duncan indeed you have full access to the code and you're able to run it. In case you use it to make money, the author has the rights to receive some amount. He could find some legal methods to do that if your action is against his will. To some extents, we all need lawyers to deal with the laws.
    @ReD_CoDE we have https://choosealicense.com/

    ReD_CoDE
  • edited November 2020

    @ReD_CoDE I have made pages for most of the licenses. They're mostly just links to a relevant source. The next step is to finish that process and then we can start categorizing base on GNU/OSI/Permissive and so on. Anyone is welcome to help with that. But there is plenty of material online about the licenses so we should not be doing anything on the wiki other than organizing relevant information (maybe with an introductory text) and linking to further reading.

    @htlcnn you're wrong, and it's there in the site you linked to https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/ . There are four freedoms which all GNU licenses protect, here they are:

    • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    There is no "right" to make money from the code of products using a free software license. That's why some projects use types of dual license. But I don't know much about them. Redhat does something else, they release their work (as far as I know) under a free license but protect their brand. So you are not free to distribute RedHat linux without removing the branding (which is what CentOS does).

    ReD_CoDE
  • @duncan I think we all talk about the same thing with different points of views
    GNU licenses talk about freedom in OS projects, but when it comes to commercial usages, there're different views
    The safe view is that in GPL and its extension AGPL, if you use them commercially, you have to have permission, which most of the times this permission is buying a license or pay part of the profit you gain to the original developers

    This is why many are not keen about Blender's license and say that license is a double sword

  • @duncan as I read the in the link:

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)

  • It all has to do with the obligations of the user using an open-source licensed project/library regarding the state of his source code.
    With GPL, one has to use the same GPL license for his own code as well, he can certainly sell and make money but his code must be open-sourced as well. This is not the case if you use a GPL library on the cloud, hence the AGPL license that applies this restriction also for code on the cloud. LGPL, MIT and other "permissive" licenses give you the freedom to decide what you want to do with your code (LGPL has some restrictions but essentially is "permissive"). Nonetheless you can sell whatever your want. At least that is what I have understood by studying these licenses over the last months.

    Moult
  • edited November 2020

    And this time the split went fine - now a thread for itself ... hope you agree that was a good idea, seemed like an obvious thing to do so this can drift away in odscurity but the AEC Software Directory discussion can stay useful.

    Jesusbill
  • edited November 2020

    Going back to the original discussion, I have already asked the developer to see if he would consider making it properly open source, and at the time he said he would consider it, but I guess nothing has changed. I have just reached out again for an update. Will keep you posted, unless he posts here himself :)

  • @htlcnn The right to charge for software has marginal practical meaning if you have to give the code away for free. You can sell a compiled installer, but then so can anyone else who wants to go to the trouble. People do sell GPL free software, I found easliy three sites (including one from Microsoft) selling GIMP. This is perfectly within their rights ( https://www.gimp.org/about/selling.html ). FSF has a page out tall this https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
    Basically you're free to charge, but not for the source code.

  • xeokit is not open source

    It is, isn't it? It's just dual licensed AGPL so not permissive for usage in closed source projects and from the website people are pushed to the commercial license.

  • edited January 2021

    @aothms not really - if it were a true dual license, I should be able to theoretically elect to comply with the AGPLv3 whilst still conducting commercial activity. So I can build my cloud app and release all the code and maybe charge for support, or charge for hosting, or whatever as my business model.

    However, the wording on his website is quite specific (emphasis mine):

    The xeokit SDK is provided under an Affero GPL V3 for non-commercial use, with the purchase of a licence required for commercial use.

    Upon chatting with Lindsay (the dev) to clarify his meaning, he actually says I'm not allowed to do any commercial use even if I choose the AGPLv3 (this is a direct conflict with the rights of the AGPLv3). Instead, I'm forced to purchase a license. So in reality, it isn't dual licensed in that you can pick AGPLv3 or commercial license, instead it is licensed as "AGPLv3-xeokit-variant-where-its-agplv3-minus-commercial-allowance" or commercial license. He has agreed in writing that because he creates this additional restriction, it is not a true AGPLv3, and therefore not a free software license, but since ongoing reminders since November 2019 no change has been made.

    In summary - he is offering this: https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-(agpl-3.0) but removing the rights for "Commercial Use" in the green box.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I'm not sure if his clarification legally overrides the fact that he has copy pasted the AGPLv3 verbatim, so maybe this is all totally wrong and actually we can just abide by the AGPLv3 since he never actually modified the license text but instead only wrote text elsewhere on his homepage ... but until a lawyer confirms this, the safe conclusion is that it is not truly free software (and after discussion with him, his intention is that it is not truly free software).

  • edited January 2021

    @Moult said:
    However, the wording on his website is quite specific (emphasis mine):

    The xeokit SDK is provided under an Affero GPL V3 for non-commercial use, with the purchase of a licence required for commercial use.

    That is not serious. You cannot have contradictory statements in your documents.

  • comply with the AGPLv3 whilst still conducting commercial activity

    Yes that was my interpretation. Just that the website conflates commercial with closed source. I was going off of the wording below, which is more sane in my interpretation:

    https://github.com/xeokit/xeokit-sdk/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

    The xeokit SDK is licensed under the Affero GPL V3 license with the option to buy a license for commercial use.

    The required in your fragment makes the statement indeed in violation with AGPL. If you go that route you also need to fully outline what specifically entails "commercial activity" I guess.

  • @aothms yes, when I first came across it I was uncertain of the interpretation (agreed that your interpretation is much more sane!) so I talked with Lindsay directly to clarify, and unfortunately it seemed to be the opposite intention - though he did mention changing it and discussing with some of his partners... but unfortunately no conclusion was made. I am linking him to this thread with another reminder to check the wording, so hopefully he can chime in. I've just pinged him again on LinkedIn. I haven't had a response in a while, so he could be ignoring me now?

    Until he clarifies the ambiguity on the website or a lawyer chimes in on what should be the official legal interpretation, I would hesitate to support any claims of free software.

  • I've merged the comments into this existing thread for better searching - I've also linked Lindsay to this thread. The good news is that Lindsay has responded! I've copied his response here:

    Lindsay writes (from LinkedIn):
    I think you've nailed it in that description.
    I'm still working on it though, having meetings with various xeokit partners to discuss our options.
    All I can tell you at this stage is that we are certainly taking it seriously, but we just need to find a way that works for our current licensees/partners.

    Fingers crossed!

    duncan
  • edited March 2021

    Great news! Lindsay has now confirmed that it is dual licensed without any caveats, so it can be used under AGPL-3.0! See website: http://xeokit.io/index.html#pricing

    I've added xeokit back to the free software directory.

    From Lindsay:

    Hi Dion, just an FYI that we've dropped the phrase "license required for commercial use" on our website: http://xeokit.io/index.html#pricing
    xeokit will always be free and open source.
    We'd appreciate it if you could relay this to the OSArch community for us.
    Thanks!

    I think we should support them 100%, as they are currently the most advanced server-side browser based viewer. This also removes the complications about supporting OpenProject (as they use xeokit)!

    JanFCyrilJesusbillbitacovirduncanStefanBoeykensSigmaDimensions
  • @Moult ask them to post somewhere and I'll promote them from one of our accounts with an appropriate comment

Sign In or Register to comment.