Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpush | Hacker News Reader

I think what fortytw2 was trying to say is that the AGPL is not a wise choice for software that wants to gain the most popularity and usage as possible since usage of AGPL licensed software is categorically banned (even more so than GPLV3) by a some of companies.

As an aside, one can certainly describe something as draconic(or whatever else) if one views it as such; it's just an opinion.

View on HN

Having just gone through a lengthy review process identifying a suitable license for our soon to be open-source software which has a commercial aspect, and selected AGPLv3, I'm very curious to know what companies have it "categorically banned". We did some research and didn't find that anyone had an issue with it. Whilst AGPL does open up come grey-areas which aren't as well understood as GPL the general reason to use it seems to be as part of a dual licensing scheme where companies with AGPL issues can simply purchase a non-transferrable limited MIT license or similar.

Can you give me any more info on your sources?

Google bans it for example: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/.

I would also be surprised if Apple (being so allergic to the GPLv3) used AGPLv3 software, though that's just speculation.

There's a perennial discussion of AGPLv3 here on hacker news. A surprising number of projects select it, then revert to something less toxic to corporations.

> I think what fortytw2 was trying to say is that the AGPL is not a wise choice for software that wants to gain the most popularity and usage as possible

Why should that be a laudable goal? Not all projects are megalomaniac.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com