5 ms·
> Google is known to be deathly allergic to the AGPL license. Not only on servers; they don't even allow employees to use AGPL software on workstations. If you
by simula67 9y ago
> Google is known to be deathly allergic to the AGPL license. Not only on servers; they don't even allow employees to use AGPL software on workstations. If you write free software, and you'd prefer that Google not use it, a good way to ensure that is to license it under the AGPL.
Man, the open source/free software community should have taken AGPL seriously
- kec 9y agoLicensing software to make it antagonistic to business is a good way to ensure no one is ever paid to improve it, which is a good way to see it stagnate. Do you really think Linux would have gone anywhere had it been licensed under those terms? There’s a reason it never moved to GPLv3.
- jbboehr 9y agoLooks like it's possible to have a "Lesser" AGPL. libbitcoin[1] uses such a license. Also licensing things under a dual AGPL/commercial license seems perfect for things like databases. Mongo uses it IIRC. [1] https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/COPYING