2 ms·

Just like every other OSS license. Sorry but this is not a reason for preferring AGPL over other licensed And of course the real reason that some developers pr

Just like every other OSS license. Sorry but this is not a reason for preferring AGPL over other licensed And of course the real reason that some developers prefer AGPL is because of the restrictions it imposes on how the software is used. Those restrictions relate to bundling with other software, which is a thing many commercial users would want to be doing. And which is a reason why the likes of MS, Oracle, Google, Amazon, etc. are unlikely to employ anybody that actively contributes to such projects. You could argue that because of the lack of commercial contributors, a lot of AGPLv3 projects are doomed to be abandonware.

webmobdev 3y ago
Just like every other OSS license. No, not like "every other OSS license". OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD for example, allow others to modify and "close-source" it. The license doesn't oblige them to produce or distribute the source code. xGPL however makes it mandatory for any developer to share the source code if they distribute any xGPL software that they have modified. This is why corporates don't like the xGPL - it's not because it can't be commercialized, but because of their belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. In our industry (software) this is ensured by not distributing the source of the softwares.