4 ms·

I think you're both right. AGPL is worse for any SaaS business if you plan to build it around your modifications of that software, period. That's very simple an

I think you're both right. AGPL is worse for any SaaS business if you plan to build it around your modifications of that software, period. That's very simple and I think nobody disagrees with it. However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. People need to know this instead of blindly copying "Google says AGPL is bad so we must avoid it at all costs."

t-writescode 5y ago
How often do people do AGPL + commercial licensing, I wonder?
- nabla9 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    What about ones with AGPL *and* commercial licensing?
tzs 5y ago
> However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. That might work if all you care about is making sure Amazon publishes their modifications to your software. The most common complaint though is Amazon offering support for the software, thereby removing the need for those who use the software on Amazon to purchase support from the original developer. Making your software AGPL doesn't help at all with that. If Amazon offers support for your software on their platform, they can kill your support revenue even if they make no modifications whatsoever to your software.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  But this is not related to licensing: anyone can offers support for any piece of software and, as far as I can tell, there is no way to prevent that in a license. Otherwise Oracle would have eliminated Rimini Street years ago (the only thing they got is $90M in the recent lawsuit which is almost nothing).

t-writescode 5y ago

How often do people do AGPL + commercial licensing, I wonder?

nabla9 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...
- t-writescode 5y ago
  What about ones with AGPL *and* commercial licensing?

tzs 5y ago

> However, there are many cases where AGPL is the best solution. That is, when you plan to release an original piece of software, not just modify someone elses's project, and you specifically want to prevent companies like Amazon or Google to profit from it without giving you anything back. In this case, dual AGPL + commercial licensing is a good way to go. That might work if all you care about is making sure Amazon publishes their modifications to your software. The most common complaint though is Amazon offering support for the software, thereby removing the need for those who use the software on Amazon to purchase support from the original developer. Making your software AGPL doesn't help at all with that. If Amazon offers support for your software on their platform, they can kill your support revenue even if they make no modifications whatsoever to your software.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
But this is not related to licensing: anyone can offers support for any piece of software and, as far as I can tell, there is no way to prevent that in a license. Otherwise Oracle would have eliminated Rimini Street years ago (the only thing they got is $90M in the recent lawsuit which is almost nothing).