5 ms·
Then they can pay for an alternative licence for their closed source project. It's a win/win/win, open source projects will still support it, so you don't get
by RobotToaster 3y ago
Then they can pay for an alternative licence for their closed source project.
It's a win/win/win, open source projects will still support it, so you don't get the backlash from the community, while those who just want to take will either pay or find a different project.
With BSL and similar, you end up looking like the "bad guy", and the forkers look like the "good guys". With AGPL you will still look like the open source "good guy", and if someone makes a fork they look like money grabbing assholes.
- ghaff 3y agoI don’t know how effective it is in general but dual licensing like Grafana now does seems a reasonable option. I assume there may be forks of the older code but I don’t actually know.
- yencabulator 3y agoThe problem is that as far as many corporations are concerned, AGPL doesn't count as "open source we dare to use", and thus a AGPL+commercial software vendor doesn't get the benefit of companies adopting the "non-Enterprise flavor" first/easily/via grassroots.