Doesn't he mean FOSS, not just open source, free and open are two different things.
The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested.
GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.
The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
The IP (intellectual property) of the code has no relationship whatsoever with the IP of the content being served by the served.
> where is the distribution?
You setting up a production server counts as “distributing the service” in AGPL's definition, as AGPL is aimed directly at the SaaS business model.
So if you use an AGPL software on your server, you need to provide the source code (including any changes/customization you've made) to your users. BTW this is a common misconception with GPL, nobody forces you to publish the code in public like on github or anything, it could be behind a login form reserved to your customers only. But you need to give them to your customers under the same AGPL license, so if they want to publish it on github themselves, or fork it and make a business out of it, they can.
Most don't require it, agpl3 does.
(Edit Agpl3)
That used to be true, but AGPL changed that. Now it can kick in if you let others interact with the program on your computer.
Yeah, exactly like a ban on slavery means less freedom for those who would own, beed, and rent out slave labour. Are we supposed to cry at this evil restriction in the freedom of would-be slave owners, boo-hoo, and allow slavery in the name of freedom?
> The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested.
It's supposed to restrict that, just like laws are supposed to remove your "freedom" to murder or take slaves. Copyleft exists for the public good, not for commercial projects. It doesn't need to be "desirable" for them.
> GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.
Utterly weird take.
Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent.
It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
Most people see free and think without cost.
So is shareware free software?
The first sentence says:
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.