3 ms·
IANAL so I don't have much experience here, but I am not sure this hits the spot. I think that an organization like Google can afford the brain power needed to
by vander_elst 4y ago
IANAL so I don't have much experience here, but I am not sure this hits the spot.
I think that an organization like Google can afford the brain power needed to understand many of the the implications of using such a license. There are probably other legal, compliance and liability reasons behind this rather than just lack of understanding.
- voakbasda 4y agoI agree. I think they understand that they do not want to comply with the license terms.
- ithkuil 4y agoYes, and they clearly state why: > The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality of the AGPL license. This viral effect requires that the complete corresponding source code of the product or service be released to the world under the AGPL license. It's not that they want to fork a opensource component and they don't want to release their changes. It's because they are afraid that accidentally one part of an AGPL code gets linked into some of their production software which would force them to disclose the sources of their own IP. And it's hard to quantify the blast radius of that, since they are linking a shit-ton of stuff in every binary (think of thick clients for their colossus storage system). It's not that they want to pull an Amazon on OSS components they then sell as a service.
- withinboredom 4y agoLicense an API under AGPL?