4 ms·
As a business owner I consider AGPL the same as a closed source. It's a thing I need to pay for and I'm not about to contribute free labour to it the same way I
by tensor 3y ago
As a business owner I consider AGPL the same as a closed source. It's a thing I need to pay for and I'm not about to contribute free labour to it the same way I wouldn't contribute to any other commercial closed source entity.
- josephcsible 3y agoWhat definition of open source are you using exactly, that the AGPL doesn't fall under?
- majewsky 3y agoProbably something like "a software that I can freely use without exposing myself to legal risk". (This is just me describing reality. My private software is under AGPL to a significant extent, but I understand why my employer's legal dept does not like AGPL.)
- madeofpalk 3y agoI think that's completely fair, even for more permissively licensed software, I dislike contributing to commercial open source products unless I'm being paid for it.
- willwinger 3y agoIn that case, If you end up using OSS without any necessity of contribution from you, would you pay for that OSS software? since you did not contribute labor to it.
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago(Not OP.) If you can, I think you should. Sometimes the type of contribution you can make is not accepted. For example, some projects don’t accept donations.
- tensor 3y agoI do pay for some more permissive open source projects that I use, even ones I contribute back to, yes. I completely understand organizations banning AGPL software. Having an employee mistakenly violate the license is just too great a risk. The majority of AGPL projects seem to be offering the same product on a different commercial license, which is the only way I'd use an AGPL project. E.g. paying for a non-APGL license to use it without the risk.