3 ms·
Totally agree that it is indeed "our loss". No argument there. I don't want to appear a kook, so I won't relitigate what I said in another reply. But essential
by abraae 10y ago
Totally agree that it is indeed "our loss". No argument there.
I don't want to appear a kook, so I won't relitigate what I said in another reply. But essentially we do want to give back. We just aren't always able to give back everything (at least not right now).
AGPL, like GPL, is all or nothing in that way. I don't get the option of giving back something, then giving back more later (OSS is threatening to some people - I have frequent discussion at work re why we give anything at all back).
Your software, your rules. You have every right to take this all or nothing position! More power to you.
But assuming that anyone that doesn't like AGPL does so because they "want to use someone else's work while hoarding [their] own" is, respectfully, a simplistic and stereotyped point of view.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoI wonder if a modified license that set an explicit fixed boundary would help. "You must contribute back any changes to this software that you make but anything that interacts with it at using its API is exempt from the license." So for example if you took the NFS server source and modified it to be distributed and highly available across multiple servers you'd have to contribute that back but the UI or management software you use build for customer interaction with it wouldn't be "infected".