Licensing change to AGPLv3

[emansom]

For the opposite of the reasoning Google gives here.
Legally ensuring no server that is running modified/improved or copied code, doesn't open-source and/or contribute back.
(Looking at you, Domm)

WARNING: Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License AGPL
MUST NOT be used at Google.

The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are
extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires
that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you
think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk
to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily
outweigh the benefits.

The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends
on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from
AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. This
viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the
product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. This is
triggered if the product or service can be accessed over a remote network
interface, so it does not even require that the product or service is actually
distributed. Because Google's core products are services that users interact
with over a remote network interface (Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube), the
consequences of an engineer accidentally depending on AGPL for one of these
services are so great that we maintain an aggressively-broad ban on all AGPL
software to doubly-ensure that AGPL could never be incorporated in these
services in any manner.

Do not attempt to check AGPL-licensed code into google3 or use it in a Google
product in any way.
Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued
laptop, or Google-issued phone without explicit authorization from the Open
Source Programs Office.

In some cases, we may have alternative licenses available for AGPL licensed
code.

[emansom]

Not that most retros will abide or care, but hey, it's better than nothing.

[Quackster]

Would this screw over previous code contributors?

[emansom]

^{_{Let me be very clear, i'm not a lawyer. I hold no authority on these subjects and could be wrong.
However, I can interpret language and actually critically analyze the intent and meaning behind
it in a very large context, just like some cooked up supercomputer running octillion of CUDA operations.
Mine is more energy efficient though, I think. Unless this is a simulation.}}

No, licensing changes are only in effect after the change.

And even if others don't agree to the change, they have no (theoretical, no one is going to be this pedantic) legal recourse as you are the sole copyright holder. GPL licenses have a clause to protect prior contributed code, from revocation by the contributor. Even if you decide to change to a "only binaries available" license tomorrow, no one can do jack shit (legally speaking). Well, except Sulake, potentially. But even that is questionable as this project is a clean-room design and no assets with copyright are in this repo.

It could keep contributors from contributing in the future, if they don't agree with the license. e.g. potential reasoning being if their goal is to keep or create a closed source better version. As GPLv3 has a loophole for networked services, which AGPLv3 closes.

I'd be suprised if any of the contributors would actually raises concern about this, or notice at all. Generally in the Habbo private server community, code licenses have always been voided and ignored. So practically speaking, changing to AGPLv3 won't acomplish anything at all, except annoy people that are forced to abide to law (e.g. employees of corporations) that wanted to re-use code from this repo in their project/product without sharing the code of their project/product with others.