> Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing? They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise

> Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing? They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise left to the reader. I genuinely don't know, I'd have to stare at definitions for a bit to form an opinion.) > Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project. Er, I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to use it in a private work? AFAIK the viral parts of AGPL/GPL only say you have to share source with users of the software; if your only user is you then it's immaterial. > Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD? Worse/better is somewhat subjective, but AGPL is a (Free and) Open Source license. It was open source (BSD), then it wasn't (SSPL), then it was open source (AGPL).