12 ms·

GNU licenses require sharing code. Bad for business.

• johannes1234321 8y ago
  For GPL (not talking AGPL as my knowledge there is too limited) Vendors in "classical" environments GPL is a valid business choice - competitors get access to the code, but also have to share their extensions. The original vendor however can be in a stronger position and share their extensions commercially (with dual licensing and CLAs for external contributions) In a cloud environment however the cloud vendor doesn't "redistribute" the software, thus doesn't have to share their extensions, thus taking revenues without any contributions, putting the cloud vendor in an even better position as the original vendor, as the original vendor pays for the maintenance of the core product, which the cloud vendor uses for free.
  • e12e 8y ago
    And the main trust of the AGPL is treating giving access to a running program, as traditional GPL "distribution" - code must be made available to users of a service upon request - along with any changes. With GPL - for example - Amazon could freely customize the Linux kernel with a new software defined networking stack for use by s3 back-end services. And would be free not to share the changes. If the kernel was under AGPL users of s3 would have a legal right to see the changes.
    • trasz 8y ago
      Of the Linux kernel was under AGPL, they would probably just use some other code under less restrictive license instead.
      • e12e 8y ago
        It was just an example. Fwiw netflix uses a bit of freebsd - but I also believe they contribute back to the community.