5 ms·
What’s to draw attention to there? MPL and AGPL are both Open Source licenses.
by amarshall 3y ago
What’s to draw attention to there? MPL and AGPL are both Open Source licenses.
- pxeger1 3y ago> For companies or organizations whose policies are not compatible with the AGPL-3.0 license, we offer a separate business license. To inquire about the business license or discuss licensing options, please contact us at opensource@narrowlink.com.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y agoOne's not usable in any corporate context, especially one that's so low level in the network stack. The doc post is a content marketing post (in this case, for SEO hacking specifically) disguised as a technical comparison, so they clearly have monetisation in mind. In other words, disingenuous advertising.
- midasuni 3y agoWhy isn’t AGPL usable?
- yebyen 3y agoIt isn't usable if your goal is to take the open source project and turn it into a component of your own commercial product that is for sale and is closed-source. But I think more than half of the people in this thread have the opposite opinion (that if it isn't open source, it isn't usable) and I tend to agree with that.
- p_l 3y agoit's also isn't usable if you're going to need to modify it, even if something trivial like patches to work on your internal historically complicated stack, then due to legal bugs in AGPL you might find yourself never compliant with the license.
- api 3y agoAFAIK if you are the owner of the copyright / original author you can use it however you see fit. The license applies to third parties.
- dgb23 3y agoHow would applying patches from the AGPL version affect your code? To me the AGPL thing feels like all or nothing.