4 ms·

I think their intention is to forbid "selling it as a paid service" but I agree - the merest whiff of legal uncertainty is enough for most companies just to giv

I think their intention is to forbid "selling it as a paid service" but I agree - the merest whiff of legal uncertainty is enough for most companies just to give it a wide berth. At least AGPL etc are well understood. But bespoke licences - if I need to call a $500/hr lawyer to check if i can use your software then I'll probably just skip it.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> I think their intention is to forbid "selling it as a paid service" That's my interpretation too. It puzzles me as surely companies providing it as a professional service would be far more likely to pay for support for the software.
tpxl 3y ago
> At least AGPL etc are well understood Is AGPL well understood? I thought people were still arguing whether you have to open source your whole company if you dare change a single line of AGPL code.
- kanwisher 3y ago
  No only open source any modifications to the AGPL code
- Avamander 3y ago
  > I thought people were still arguing whether you have to open source your whole company if you dare change a single line of AGPL code. Part of that argument is just a few companies' fear of contributing anything back, not that the license is so wide.