Difference between Affero-GPL and GPLv3

Question

What is the difference between the Affero General Public License and the GNU General Public License (GPL)?

Solution 1

Assume the following:

You are developing a server side application in GPL. Now this application serves HTML and not an executable which is directly executed on your machine. That means that another guy could take the GPL code, adapt it and does not necessarily need to publish it. Ie. he can create the identical service using your software without violating the GPL. (Although THEN he cannot publish the software itself i.e. selling)

Not so with the AGPL.

This hole in the GPL is often called "Application Service Provider" hole.

Search for "Why AGPL" or "AGPL vs. GPL" or just read this for some real projects who have problems with GPL. The MongoDB tries another interesing thing. They want that people do not fork the core DB (thatwhy AGPL) but the driver which has to be linked with the main program is apache 2.0 licensed so that the mongoDB could be used within commercial application.

Public web application that uses the AGPL are listed at wikipedia.

Solution 2

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.

Comments

[Mirko N.]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

[Ciro Santilli OurBigBook.com]

programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/131264/…

[josliber]

@MikeWilliamson there is pretty significant community consensus on meta that these questions are off-topic -- you can read more and join the discussion here and here and here and here.

[user1767316]

The affrero AGPL should rather be compared to the GNU AGPL version 3 gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

[a1300]

The affero.org domain no longer serves licensing content. Please link to gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

[conradkleinespel]

I thought GPL allowed you to sell the software or a modified version of the software as long as you make it GPL too. Is that not the case?

[Karussell]

@conradk yes, sure you can sell but the example was about using the software hidden behind a service. I will rephrase to 'Although THEN he cannot publish the software itself (i.e. selling)'

[conradkleinespel]

I'm sorry, but I disagree again. He can sell it, as long as it is licensed under GPL. Well, that's how I understand the license. No?

[Karussell]

I do not explain the 'selling' here, I explain that for this guy it would be possible to use the GPL code in his closed source service WITHOUT violating the license and WITHOUT the necessity to publish the code. This might not be intented from the original author.

[conradkleinespel]

I think that sentence is very confusing. What does "Although then he cannot publish the software itself" mean?

[Syed Lavasani]

@conradk, it means "he cannot publish the software itself, if he wants to keep it closed source." (but he still can use it server side).

[conradkleinespel]

@SyedLavasani: That is more clear indeed. Thanks. Because he can publish it under AGPL terms and sell it, I think.

[vhs]

See also choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0