alt Hacker NewsI think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software.
They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.
GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version.
I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extremely permissive licensed piece of software, but competition doesn't appear to be it.
Replies
> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.
Some people pick the AGPL because the license itself acts like garlic to commons destroying IP vampires and are disappointed that those vampires still found a way to drink their IP milkshake.
Has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with not wanting to be taken advantage of for free labor and IP by powerful entities that would deny them a glass of water if they were dying from thirst.
> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.
This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them.
That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.
They care that other people can sell the software, not that other people can use the software, which is why the license they use makes that distinction.