With automation you'd build images based on their images but run via your own CI/CD with your own security scans and any additions you might need (like additional logging infrastructure). Doing that is not possible with AGPL.
I guess, to a certain extent, that's because I'm an individual, not a company, and one that tends to open source pretty much everything they write. This is the same licensing that I use for pretty much all my projects (AGPL with no CLA).
What are you talking about? They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.
That's not the scenario gary-kim laid out; you've failed to satisfy the constraints in the premise.
I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)
> I don't think _any_ of the mainstream open-source licenses allow you to retroactively revoke or change the license.
My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent which you mean as _relevant_ context. If I wanted to include the parent context the reply would be more specific. This was a direct reply to a specific message. This is a very normal way to reply on the internet, HN is not special.
> My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent
The parent's parent at that point is... your comment, "For future versions, not past versions," which was off-topic.
> This is a very normal way to reply on the internet
Indeed, it's common for people to lose the plot in the comments section and then get defensive (and smug) while being wrong, e.g.:
When have I suggested the project change the license??? I only said it is possible.
You're right if and only if by "they" you mean every copyright holder whose contributions would exist in the future version (including, say, the contributions of the very person you're responding to). But if by "they" you mean the project leaders acting without the cooperation of everyone who holds copyright, then that's a no.
https://github.com/Requarks/wiki/graphs/contributors
Main guy commiting 600k lines and the second most committed guy 450 lines.
So yeah, it wouldn't take him a whole lot of time if he really wanted to change the license by removing all the others' commits and rewriting it by himself.
Also, what does AGPL has anything to do with keeping the license open sourced?
> So yeah, it wouldn't take him a whole lot of time if he really wanted to change the license by removing all the others' commits and rewriting it by himself.
Good point. I may try to get involved in its development as well to spread that out a little more.
> Also, what does AGPL has anything to do with keeping the license open sourced?
The AGPL requires that any code linked to it also be distributed with an AGPL license (the difference from the GPL being that hosting over a network counts as distribution). Every part of the project is technically linked to itself so if someone makes a change, no one else can use that change in the project under a different license.
None of that is impossible with AGPL.
So what? If companies need a certain software, they can pay for it. I remember a time when FOSS was not about providing companies with free work, quite the opposite indeed.
This isn't about good/bad or something like that, just an odd presentation that doesn't seem to be in line with the license. There is nobody to pay here to use this stuff because you still won't be able to integrate it without also sharing internal IP.
There are plenty of organisations that would happily pay what they'd normally pay Atlassian to use Wiki.js but they can't because they don't want to share any of their own code. This is also why license guides like the one from google explicitly bans all AGPL software because it's not worth the risk.
It's a bit weird to comment on this as if it's an oversight or unintended downside. Suppose you keep going into someone's house and they don't want you to, so they do something to dissuade you (like putting locks on their doors). You then complain that you can't get in. Their likely response? "Well, yeah..."