alt Hacker NewsAs a lay person, I still don't get what is AGPL missing that makes vendors "invent" so many new licenses and spawn so much debate? Why not just use AGPL, and if it's insufficient, invest in an AGPLv2 initiative?
Replies
MinIO made their source AGPL, but then cloud providers hosted the service "as is" and make money off it, with MinIO team getting zip. That still complies with AGPL but is not monetarily beneficial to the MinIO team.
At least that's my understanding. They closed source completely, but a source-available license wouldn't have run into this issue.
It is not possible to create a license that would satisfy the Free Software Foundation's "four freedoms" while also solving the issues many of those vendors have with the AGPL. At the same time, the "source available" mindset doesn't have a steward organization like the FSF or OSI.
The major concern regarding the AGPL is that it only fosters code share when a code change is involved. The license has nothing to do with someone building a competitive service around your project.
If a Big Tech company happened to build a cloud service (SaaS) around your project without any code change, and that service is more competitive than the one you provide, there is not much you can do about it with the AGPL.
The AGPL is published by the FSF, with mainly community-led projects in mind. The profit and sustainability of a corporation is not their primary concern. (A minor correction: The most recent version is v3; any newer version would be v4, not v2.)
Source available isn't a license, it is the lack of a license. It's the legal default state for all art. It can include whatever made-up rules the author wants you to follow but your just as well off if you don't read them and just treat it as copyrighted.
See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#b...
MongoDB invested sufficient resources in drafting an update to the AGPL. That license is called the Server Side Public License. Controversy ensued.