3 ms·

Perhaps, but many companies have a 'Abosolutely No AGPL' policy which effectively reduces adoption.

• dublinben 11y ago
  Those companies are missing out on some really great tools then, like this one. Perhaps as more and more awesome software is released as AGPL, they will change their position.
• jf 11y ago
  Of course, the way to say in compliance with those policies is for those companies to purchase licenses for the software.
• vinceguidry 11y ago
  That seems like a very silly policy. Do these companies do any kind of analysis on what they'd need from their software licenses and what they'd be giving up by using AGPL? You'd think from their attitudes that the FSF is a patent troll.
  • nyan3 11y ago
    Let's look at the advantages of using software under "permissive" licenses for those companies: - embedding somebody else's code in a closed source product and potentially compete against it - patenting somebody else's code and potentially sue the author For the upstream author losing this type of hostile users my using AGPL might be a good idea.
  • davis 11y ago
    It's not a silly policy. Using AGPL software (without getting a commercial license) in any modified form and/or depending on it would require all applications that use it across the network to be open sourced. Of course this requires it to be modified which could happen accidentally and completely put a closed source application in jeopardy. More info: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/107883/89740 http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/107883/89740
• nabla9 11y ago
  That's why AGPL + Multi-licensing is so good idea. If you have hangups against AGPL, you can pay money and get commercial license.