Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by vbit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

vbit·

Perhaps, but many companies have a 'Abosolutely No AGPL' policy which effectively reduces adoption.

View on HN

That's why AGPL + Multi-licensing is so good idea.

If you have hangups against AGPL, you can pay money and get commercial license.

Those companies are missing out on some really great tools then, like this one. Perhaps as more and more awesome software is released as AGPL, they will change their position.

That seems like a very silly policy. Do these companies do any kind of analysis on what they'd need from their software licenses and what they'd be giving up by using AGPL?

You'd think from their attitudes that the FSF is a patent troll.

Let's look at the advantages of using software under "permissive" licenses for those companies: - embedding somebody else's code in a closed source product and potentially compete against it - patenting somebody else's code and potentially sue the author

For the upstream author losing this type of hostile users my using AGPL might be a good idea.

It's not a silly policy. Using AGPL software (without getting a commercial license) in any modified form and/or depending on it would require all applications that use it across the network to be open sourced.

Of course this requires it to be modified which could happen accidentally and completely put a closed source application in jeopardy.

More info: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/107883/89740

Of course, the way to say in compliance with those policies is for those companies to purchase licenses for the software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com