3 ms·
To me AGPL is still very open, but it sure limits stuff. Gotta be even more careful with it in an enterprise setting than GPL. Can deploy it internally, but mus
by actionfromafar 3y ago
To me AGPL is still very open, but it sure limits stuff. Gotta be even more careful with it in an enterprise setting than GPL. Can deploy it internally, but must be internally and it’s a constant risk.
I haven’t found a reason to deploy one yet. One use case I have seen is to have some sort of commercial/AGPL double distribution, perhaps with the AGPL release lagging behind.
- mcny 3y agoSorry, so I must have misunderstood AGPL then? Assuming a well written software, your configuration values can still be secret, right? As long as you give all your users the source code you got and the changes you made to the code (not the configuration), you should be ok? It is crazy to expect someone to ask for things like your database password or your exact configuration like sync intervals.
- actionfromafar 3y agoNo you are right. I just meant that if you deploy a GPL service internally and the service somehow makes its way outside the organization, you don’t have to distribute the source code or anything. But with AGPL, you now have to. Ensuring compliance is costlier.
- mcny 3y agoWhy is compliance costlier? There are companies that don't comply with GPLv2 for months and there is no cost as far as I can tell previously on HN, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31713525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31713525
- actionfromafar 3y agoCompliance is costlier if you actually spend resources trying to comply. What you are referring to is the cost of non-compliance. Maybe the joke swoshed by me. :)