3 ms·

the open source license is AGPL-3. Interestingly, their CLA specifies UK law, but they are based in New Zealand.

• chongli 7y ago
  Even with AGPL-3 a corporation could still use it internally (which I think was the GP’s point). It can’t be used to start an Overleaf competitor though, since you’d have to release all of your changes.
  • enriquto 7y ago
    > It can’t be used to start an Overleaf competitor though, since you’d have to release all of your changes. Can you explain the logic of this argument? I don't understand it. That's the whole point of the AGPL, that you release your changes.
    • celticninja 7y ago
      I think GP is saying that you could not use it as a basis for proprietary software but you could build on it it and sell it to people as long as you published your modifications.
    • bigjake 7y ago
      Iirc AGPL states that basically you must make the source to your entire application available to users, both the client and server side. I believe many misinterpret this to mean your entire application must be open sourced publicly, but this is not entirely true. If a corporation develops something using AGPL code and none of their users are external to the company, then they are under no obligation to distribute their source (or they must distribute it to themselves, which is effectively the same thing). IANAL, however.