alt Hacker NewsSorry, but I won't cry for corps big enough to have legal departments because they elected not to benefit from my software. They have too much power for me to worry about looking to accommodate them and their fantasy.
I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here.
They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them.
it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL.
Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
My point is less about the AGPL license itself and more about the people who choose it.
If the OSI came out and made a statement on the ambiguities in the AGPL, and cleared the FUD in such a way that all companies agreed and could reference it, I'd wager that the AGPL would over time become much, much less popular for commercial open source. But I'd wager that they won't do that, because they win when COSS wins.
But if they did, we'd likely even see a move towards non-OSS licenses, ones that are clear as to their intent and rules -- rather than relying on ambiguity -- because there would no longer be an OSI-approved license that businesses could use to have their cake and eat it too.
Very few COSS business/startup/w/e right now are choosing AGPL for altruistic reasons. This thread and every other COSS licensing thread here are evidence of that.
Few of them care about software freedoms, or know why they chose the AGPL. They have a playbook that says AGPL lets them take advantage of the open source distribution flywheel, while largely protecting them from the risks associated with commercial open source, i.e. competition. They choose AGPL for this, not because it's the best license for users.
I honestly don't get how people don't see the deception under the AGPL right now.