3 ms·
Correct but the reason for that is the fact that all of the sudden companies are forced to contribute back if they want to offer commercial software on top of t
by intheleantime 3y ago
Correct but the reason for that is the fact that all of the sudden companies are forced to contribute back if they want to offer commercial software on top of the labor of OSS projects.
Again, I agree with the reasoning for libraries, devTools, infrastructure etc given that those libraries end up in commercial products. However in the case of full fleshed enduser applications AGPL is a great protector against the amazons of the world.
- hedora 3y agoFor device manufacturers, GPL3 is just as onerous as AGPL. As an end user, I'd rather not use GPL3 software that has a carve out that enables the software to be used by privacy hostile service providers that routinely force-upgrade their user customers to worse versions of their systems, but that prevents people from just sticking a customized version of the software on a gizmo and selling it to me. After all, I can least air-gap and not upgrade most gizmos. Anyway, I wish they'd rename AGPL to GPLv4 so the infamous "or later" clause applied to it.
- leanable 3y agoAre you for or against the Affero? Depending on the side your choose, could you explain a bit more on how and why Affero helps or does not help in the 1990s purpose of original 1990 license?