Pierre BourdonAug 16, 2024

Hot take, don't @ me: AGPL should never have been an OSI approved license.

The license is basically a compliance trap, and I would posit that > 99% of modified AGPL software violates the license.

This leads to a world where license enforcement is entirely up to arbitrary decisions by the copyright owner. Any contributor to an AGPL software package (without CLA) can go and mass-send C&Ds and/or request $$$, kind of like the Creative Commons copyright trolls have been doing for CC-BY violations.

Show threadPierre BourdonAug 16, 2024

That's without even getting into the fact that really, the AGPL is GPL + a "usage restriction" clause camouflaging as not being one (because that would be against the FSF's principles).

I suspect most of the AGPL users would be better served with some of the more permissive source-available licenses. Unfortunately, people seem to have allergic reactions to non-OSI approved licenses, and AGPL being OSI approved even though it sucks means it gets regarded more highly than better alternatives.

Show threadMarsh RayAug 16, 2024
@delroth If something is AGPL I won’t touch it. Not even for personal use.
I’d sooner buy a commercial product than interact with someone who believes their “open source” code copyright claims reach over a network at runtime.
Show threadEllenor Bjornsdottir   
@marshray @delroth man lucky you sadly all the good apub software is agpl #krokodili
Aug 17, 2024 at 8:39amWeb