3 ms·

The problem is that it will also affect code that's only tangibly related to the AGPL'd code. See e.g. the Google page: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agp

The problem is that it will also affect code that's only tangibly related to the AGPL'd code. See e.g. the Google page: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy As mentioned, I'm only really interested in preventing people from "leeching" off my work by setting up a competing service with their (unpublished) changes. I'm not so sure if this is a real issue with end-user program like GoatCounter, but in general I'm not a fan of "viral" licenses. > This doesn't need dual-licensing, just a license exception that allows certain groups of people (e.g. personal websites below a certain scale) to ignore certain clauses of the license. The AGPL can't be changed though, it's explicitly mentioned at the top. So as I understand it, the only way is to offer it under two licenses (if personal then this license, else other one). I'm not really sure how this works legally (didn't research).

JoshTriplett 7y ago
I'm familiar with Google's AGPL policy. Google doesn't have a policy against paying for an alternative license, though; the bottom of the page you linked to says "In some cases, we may have alternative licenses available for AGPL licensed code.". Offering your code under a copyleft license and selling an alternative license is a long-standing successful business model. >> This doesn't need dual-licensing, just a license exception that allows certain groups of people (e.g. personal websites below a certain scale) to ignore certain clauses of the license. > The AGPL can't be changed though, it's explicitly mentioned at the top. So as I understand it, the only way is to offer it under two licenses (if personal then this license, else other one). I'm not really sure how this works legally (didn't research). You can't modify the text of the AGPL, but you can offer exceptions to it, and the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 make that even easier than the GPLv2 did. Many pieces of software are available under licenses that consist of the GPL or AGPL plus an exception. This is not at all uncommon. The LGPLv3 itself actually consists of the GPLv3 plus an exception. As an example, you could write something like "Licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or later. As an exception, if you are using an unmodified version of the software solely for your own individual use on a personal (non-business) site with less than X active users, and not offering the software as a part of a service provided to others, you are not required to provide the source of the software as would be otherwise required by clause 13 of the AGPL." (Also worth noting: technically you can modify the text of the GPL or AGPL if you omit the preamble and modify the instructions, but the result will not be an OSI-approved license, and if you're not careful it also likely won't be GPL-compatible. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL .)

JoshTriplett 7y ago

I'm familiar with Google's AGPL policy. Google doesn't have a policy against paying for an alternative license, though; the bottom of the page you linked to says "In some cases, we may have alternative licenses available for AGPL licensed code.". Offering your code under a copyleft license and selling an alternative license is a long-standing successful business model. >> This doesn't need dual-licensing, just a license exception that allows certain groups of people (e.g. personal websites below a certain scale) to ignore certain clauses of the license. > The AGPL can't be changed though, it's explicitly mentioned at the top. So as I understand it, the only way is to offer it under two licenses (if personal then this license, else other one). I'm not really sure how this works legally (didn't research). You can't modify the text of the AGPL, but you can offer exceptions to it, and the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 make that even easier than the GPLv2 did. Many pieces of software are available under licenses that consist of the GPL or AGPL plus an exception. This is not at all uncommon. The LGPLv3 itself actually consists of the GPLv3 plus an exception. As an example, you could write something like "Licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or later. As an exception, if you are using an unmodified version of the software solely for your own individual use on a personal (non-business) site with less than X active users, and not offering the software as a part of a service provided to others, you are not required to provide the source of the software as would be otherwise required by clause 13 of the AGPL." (Also worth noting: technically you can modify the text of the GPL or AGPL if you omit the preamble and modify the instructions, but the result will not be an OSI-approved license, and if you're not careful it also likely won't be GPL-compatible. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL .)