• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle







  • I think we’re in violent agreement. The problem is you need someone in licensing/legal to take a risk at this point to even use AGPL on a corp machine. Figure out the law and the license, then make judgement calls on some slightly fuzzy parts. They’re just not going to do it. Maybe in a few years if someone tests “the right” model, whatever that is in court and prevails. Meaning the dev gets paid and the user retains intellectual property that is either tangential to the product or provides enough value to be it’s own product that’s still sellable in the same way as before the suit.


  • Unless it’s open source and you have any contributions without a rug pull contributor agreement. Also you don’t have any AGPL dependencies.

    We had that relicense convo with the desktop tool maker and they were hogtied by both. Corporate policy dudes had to be harassed into even looking into it. Then maybe 3 months of back and forth championed by motivated tool users later they said to hell with it and banned it.

    So if you plan for the AGPL rug pull for your contributors or you have no contributors and none of your dependencies are AGPL in a viral way, go ahead.


  • They might hope to make money at any point in the future. AGPL is too viral to integrate with. Working at a large corporation they’ve banned a standalone desktop tool we could have used because it was AGPL. We wanted to pay for it, but we couldn’t. It’s a dead end product for corporate users. So personal use , hobbyists, and those companies that think the AGPL won’t infect their IP or don’t care. You limit your TAM severely if you use AGPL.

    So if you aren’t in it to ever make money in the future, go for it.