4 ms·

I don't understand what's wrong with AGPL-style licenses. If I wrote something that can be used in a cloud I would also prefer AGPL to prevent cloud companies f

I don't understand what's wrong with AGPL-style licenses. If I wrote something that can be used in a cloud I would also prefer AGPL to prevent cloud companies from selling software and taking all the profit while contributing nothing.

dspillett 3y ago
> I don't understand what's wrong with AGPL-style licenses. Nothing IMO. But many commercial entities won't touch software covered by them, so if wide adoption is one of your desires this could be a significant consideration. You can argue as much as you like about where lines are and how using <component> won't mean they have to open source their entire business, but you'll get nowhere, and the blanket ban will remain. If they really want what your component does they'll do it in-house (and maybe release that under a more permissive licence) or use an alternative if one already exists. Dual licensing (AGPL with commercial options) usually won't help either: they don't actually want a commercial option because they don't want to pay for things the way they want others to pay their services. Dual licensing can also be an issue for other contributors, it becomes more important to have a CLA⁰ so you can do that at all (legally) and a CLA might put off a lot of potential contributors. This would not be an issue for me¹², and from your question I assume it wouldn't be for you either, but for some people/projects it could be more important, possibly a blocker. -- [0] Unless your project is “open source, not open contribution” which is a perfectly valid choice and one I'd likely go for, but again this is not suitable for all people/projects. [1] “We can't/won't use your stuff under its current licence”. Me: “OK, thanks for letting me know.” [2] “If you don't do X³ we'll have to go elsewhere”. Me: “OK. Enjoy your trip. Hope it works out for you.” [3] where X could be a license change or anything else
aragilar 3y ago
AGPL and SSPL are quite different (around how it works with other licenses and software), and those differences are what makes AGPL still FOSS, and SSPL not.

dspillett 3y ago

> I don't understand what's wrong with AGPL-style licenses. Nothing IMO. But many commercial entities won't touch software covered by them, so if wide adoption is one of your desires this could be a significant consideration. You can argue as much as you like about where lines are and how using <component> won't mean they have to open source their entire business, but you'll get nowhere, and the blanket ban will remain. If they really want what your component does they'll do it in-house (and maybe release that under a more permissive licence) or use an alternative if one already exists. Dual licensing (AGPL with commercial options) usually won't help either: they don't actually want a commercial option because they don't want to pay for things the way they want others to pay their services. Dual licensing can also be an issue for other contributors, it becomes more important to have a CLA⁰ so you can do that at all (legally) and a CLA might put off a lot of potential contributors. This would not be an issue for me¹², and from your question I assume it wouldn't be for you either, but for some people/projects it could be more important, possibly a blocker. -- [0] Unless your project is “open source, not open contribution” which is a perfectly valid choice and one I'd likely go for, but again this is not suitable for all people/projects. [1] “We can't/won't use your stuff under its current licence”. Me: “OK, thanks for letting me know.” [2] “If you don't do X³ we'll have to go elsewhere”. Me: “OK. Enjoy your trip. Hope it works out for you.” [3] where X could be a license change or anything else

aragilar 3y ago

AGPL and SSPL are quite different (around how it works with other licenses and software), and those differences are what makes AGPL still FOSS, and SSPL not.