Now that scratch is AGPL doesn’t the rest of the website have to be open source

CodeTorchNET

AGPLv3.0 (the new license of scratch-www) closes the SaaS loophole that GPL has. While we cannot confirm this, the rest of Scratch is an aggregate work of Scratch-www. This means that legally Scratch is required to disclose the rest of its source code.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something

o97doge

Yes and no, while Scratch should disclose their source code, they don't legally have to. However, you have to. They have a Contributor License Agreement, which allows them to have full rights to anything you directly contribute to them, including sub-licensing.

CodeTorchNET

o97doge wrote:
Yes and no, while Scratch should disclose their source code, they don't legally have to. However, you have to. They have a Contributor License Agreement, which allows them to have full rights to anything you directly contribute to them, including sub-licensing.

So this basically makes this whole thing just a business stunt

Jeffalo

CodeTorchNET wrote:
o97doge wrote:
Yes and no, while Scratch should disclose their source code, they don't legally have to. However, you have to. They have a Contributor License Agreement, which allows them to have full rights to anything you directly contribute to them, including sub-licensing.
So this basically makes this whole thing just a business stunt

.. no?

my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way. changing the license to the AGPL means that going forward, they’ve got more legal protections against people doing that to them.

CodeTorchNET

Jeffalo wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
o97doge wrote:
Yes and no, while Scratch should disclose their source code, they don't legally have to. However, you have to. They have a Contributor License Agreement, which allows them to have full rights to anything you directly contribute to them, including sub-licensing.
So this basically makes this whole thing just a business stunt
.. no?

my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way. changing the license to the AGPL means that going forward, they’ve got more legal protections against people doing that to them.

While I understand where u are coming from. But think of it this way, section 4.1 allows them to break their license and the license of any child project dependent on it (meaning from what I understand they could use Turbowarp and fully disregarded the GPLv3 that comes with it). This by its self defies the whole purpose of open source software (from the way I see it at least). and now that it’s AGPLv3 they can do whatever they want but everyone else no longer can. I would fully agree with this decision if they also disclosed there entire source code as then they would be following the same standard that they expect everyone else to follow (at the end of the day Scratch is also a business). (This is why I’m saying it’s a personal stunt)
This is just my personal perspective

Also who’s using the scratch compiler and making a lot of money off of it (genuinely wondering)

Voxalice

CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
I would fully agree with this decision if they also disclosed there entire source code as then they would be following the same standard that they expect everyone else to follow (at the end of the day Scratch is also a business).

https://github.com/orgs/scratchfoundation/repositories

CodeTorchNET

Voxalice wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
I would fully agree with this decision if they also disclosed there entire source code as then they would be following the same standard that they expect everyone else to follow (at the end of the day Scratch is also a business).
https://github.com/orgs/scratchfoundation/repositories

I am fully aware that most of the Scratch’s code is open source, however not ALL of it is (eg: their backend), which is what they expect from the rest of us (AGPLv3 is a very copyleft license meaning it infects everything it touched). Just to be fully clear I’m not mad at all at Scratch, I think that this is a step in the right direction but as they say “you have to lead by example” which I think Scratch could do a better job of. Also in the end of the Scratch is a non profit from a university why do they care who’s making money off what (with that logic why is anything open source)? That’s all I’m saying.

Again please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just sharing my opinion

o97doge

CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
-snip-
(meaning from what I understand they could use Turbowarp and fully disregarded the GPLv3 that comes with it).
-snip-

No, they can't. They only have the rights to use whatever was directly contributed to them. A mod isn't directly contributed to them, so they don't have the rights to use any mod except what the license of that mod is.

Last edited by o97doge (Nov. 27, 2024 06:34:14)

CodeTorchNET

o97doge wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
-snip-
(meaning from what I understand they could use Turbowarp and fully disregarded the GPLv3 that comes with it).
-snip-
No, they can't. They only have the rights to use whatever was directly contributed to them. A mod isn't directly contributed to them, so they don't have the rights to use any mod except what the license of that mod is.

It says “distribute the Contribution and such derivative works”, why doesn’t Turbowarp-gui count as a derivative work? (Genuine question, legal jargon is really confusing)

Maximouse

CodeTorchNET wrote:
o97doge wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
-snip-
(meaning from what I understand they could use Turbowarp and fully disregarded the GPLv3 that comes with it).
-snip-
No, they can't. They only have the rights to use whatever was directly contributed to them. A mod isn't directly contributed to them, so they don't have the rights to use any mod except what the license of that mod is.
It says “distribute the Contribution and such derivative works”, why doesn’t Turbowarp-gui count as a derivative work? (Genuine question, legal jargon is really confusing)

I think it's referring to derivative works of the contribution – if you contribute to Scratch, they have the right to create derivative works of your contribution and distribute them.

Last edited by Maximouse (Nov. 27, 2024 07:05:34)

CodeTorchNET

Maximouse wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
o97doge wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#5)
-snip-
(meaning from what I understand they could use Turbowarp and fully disregarded the GPLv3 that comes with it).
-snip-
No, they can't. They only have the rights to use whatever was directly contributed to them. A mod isn't directly contributed to them, so they don't have the rights to use any mod except what the license of that mod is.
It says “distribute the Contribution and such derivative works”, why doesn’t Turbowarp-gui count as a derivative work? (Genuine question, legal jargon is really confusing)
I think it's referring to derivative works of the contribution – if you contribute to Scratch, they have the right to create derivative works of your contribution and distribute them.

And why does Turbowarp not count as a “contribution” to Scratch (it is in the end of the day a fork of the project (and what is a fork but a contribution that was never pushed back up the tree))

Maximouse

CodeTorchNET wrote:
And why does Turbowarp not count as a “contribution” to Scratch (it is in the end of the day a fork of the project (and what is a fork but a contribution that was never pushed back up the tree))

From the CLA:

“Contribution” shall mean the code, documentation or other original works of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is Submitted by you to Company for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the works, products or projects owned or managed by Company (each a “Project”).

The author of TurboWarp never submitted it to the ST for inclusion in Scratch.

Last edited by Maximouse (Nov. 27, 2024 10:19:26)

CodeTorchNET

Maximouse wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
And why does Turbowarp not count as a “contribution” to Scratch (it is in the end of the day a fork of the project (and what is a fork but a contribution that was never pushed back up the tree))
From the CLA:
“Contribution” shall mean the code, documentation or other original works of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is Submitted by you to Company for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the works, products or projects owned or managed by Company (each a “Project”).
The author of TurboWarp never submitted it to the ST for inclusion in Scratch.

Oh that makes sense thanks

rdococ

Does the AGPL necessitate open-sourcing third-party backends?

Jonathan50

rdococ wrote:
Does the AGPL necessitate open-sourcing third-party backends?

What do you mean more specifically (can you give an example case)? If you're modifying scratch-www, then yes. If you're just hosting scratch-gui on a server or whatever, then I'm pretty sure you don't need to make any of your backend code available.

Jonathan50

Jeffalo wrote:
my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way.

Ah. Can you give examples?

CodeTorchNET

rdococ wrote:
Does the AGPL necessitate open-sourcing third-party backends?

AGPL and GPL are informally known as virus licenses meaning anything and everything they touch must become open source, so yes including tue backend

(On a side note there is an exception if the program is an aggregate of the GPL program, but scratch would fs not qualify for that)

CodeTorchNET

Jonathan50 wrote:
Jeffalo wrote:
my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way.
Ah. Can you give examples?

I was wondering the same thing, who’s making money off of scratch’s source code?

CST1229

CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#18)
Jonathan50 wrote:
Jeffalo wrote:
my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way.
Ah. Can you give examples?
I was wondering the same thing, who’s making money off of scratch’s source code?

- creaticode (has a premium subscription that some features are locked behind. entirely closed source)
- gandi ide (parts of its editor are closed source IIRC, and the developers may be planning on adding some sort of subscription in the far future according to the FAQ on the about page)
and probably more [though they aren't forced to become opensource unless they want to update to the latest scratch version]
(are mentioning these allowed?)

Last edited by CST1229 (Nov. 28, 2024 05:27:13)

CodeTorchNET

CST1229 wrote:
CodeTorchNET wrote:
(#18)
Jonathan50 wrote:
Jeffalo wrote:
my understanding is that they’re making this change because at the moment there are commercial entities which take scratch (the editor) and are basically making tons of money off of it as closed source software, without giving back to scratch in any way.
Ah. Can you give examples?
I was wondering the same thing, who’s making money off of scratch’s source code?
- creaticode (has a premium subscription that some features are locked behind. entirely closed source)
- gandi ide (parts of its editor are closed source IIRC, and the developers may be planning on adding some sort of subscription in the far future according to the FAQ on the about page)
and probably more [though they aren't forced to become opensource unless they want to update to the latest scratch version]
(are mentioning these allowed?)

Never heard of either of those, do people actually use them?

Discuss Scratch