2 ms·

I almost went there myself in my response, but I don't think that's the strongest argument since any of your users could request the source and then hand it ove

• CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  Yeah but then you have non CLA-ed code in the original codebase which in the context of an AGPL+CLA project, now it's just AGPL and their upstream has to be maintained separate from their proprietary offering. So in that sense, it's no different than if the maintainers was just a collection of open source contributors rather than a corporation. They can integrate your changes as long as they comply with the license but they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well.
  • bruce511 3y ago
    You are completely correct, but I think it's worth clarifying one part. >> they can't meaningfully profit off of them To be clear that can absolutely profit off the code, as long as they do do under the same license. ("Meaningful" being in the eye of the beholder.) Implying that you can't "meaningfully profit" from an AGPL license is not technically true (although, of course, finding examples that do is tricky.)
    • CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      Yeah I intended that note as one unit like below. > they can't meaningfully profit off of them outside of any service you yourself code be providing as well i.e. They can't do anything with your contributions that any random user or contributor would be able to do under the rights of the license.