4 ms·

Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. And if people can’t eventually use it for work, people don’t tend to use it at all these days

Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. And if people can’t eventually use it for work, people don’t tend to use it at all these days. projects with no users fizzle out.

hgs3 4y ago
> Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. That's the point of dual licensing: companies will need to purchase a closed source license. > And if people can’t eventually use it for work, people don’t tend to use it at all these days. Lots of folks are late night hackers and Free Software enthusiast. They'll use it and pass the good word along to the Big Corp they work for. > projects with no users fizzle out. That's no different than proprietary software.
- mikymoothrowa 4y ago
  Why would companies purchase a license for something that nobody in their team asked for? and why would people ask for something that haven’t used? and why would people use something that is AGPL and they can’t use it anyway? we would see a lot of AGPL projects out there if it worked the way you described
  - hgs3 4y ago
    Businesses seek out and use 3rd party software, whether it be proprietary or open source, because they have a need for it e.g. it solves a real world problem they have. The whole point of dual licensing is so businesses pay cash for a closed source license because they won't or can't abide by the GPL. The exchange of money for a closed-source software license is no different than the same business purchasing a license to proprietary software. At least with duel licensing they _could_ theoretically choose the copyleft license, but in practice they won't or can't.
gaius_baltar 4y ago
> Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. And this says a lot. GPL does exist for a reason and it is a hell of a good one: prevent the kind of leeching these companies are so fond of.

hgs3 4y ago

> Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. That's the point of dual licensing: companies will need to purchase a closed source license. > And if people can’t eventually use it for work, people don’t tend to use it at all these days. Lots of folks are late night hackers and Free Software enthusiast. They'll use it and pass the good word along to the Big Corp they work for. > projects with no users fizzle out. That's no different than proprietary software.

mikymoothrowa 4y ago
Why would companies purchase a license for something that nobody in their team asked for? and why would people ask for something that haven’t used? and why would people use something that is AGPL and they can’t use it anyway? we would see a lot of AGPL projects out there if it worked the way you described
- hgs3 4y ago
  Businesses seek out and use 3rd party software, whether it be proprietary or open source, because they have a need for it e.g. it solves a real world problem they have. The whole point of dual licensing is so businesses pay cash for a closed source license because they won't or can't abide by the GPL. The exchange of money for a closed-source software license is no different than the same business purchasing a license to proprietary software. At least with duel licensing they _could_ theoretically choose the copyleft license, but in practice they won't or can't.

gaius_baltar 4y ago

> Companies wouldn’t touch a GPL let alone an AGPL with a 20ft pole. And this says a lot. GPL does exist for a reason and it is a hell of a good one: prevent the kind of leeching these companies are so fond of.