The linked GitHub repo clearly says Apache License, but their commercial website does say AGPL. They're not even remotely similar.
The AGPL is regarded as so toxic that nearly all companies where office suites matter, place it on a "do not use" list. It's a good way to artificially limit your potential customers. It doesn't matter that they have a page saying "sure go ahead and use it internally" - most places won't touch it with a 10m pole, by policy.
This is pure fud. Nothing else.
AGPL DOES NOT restrict ability to be used internally. Agpl does NOT restrict selling software as it is.
Agpl does not restrict using agpl software with proprietary software.
Only thing that agpl prevent is, IF YOU MODIFY AGPL SOFTWARE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOURCE CODE TO USERS. Your modifications. Thats it.
AGPL DOES NOT MANDATE upstreaming modifications. You can do it or you cannot. Your choice. Others can choose to upstream or fork or Downstream your modifications
What you are confusing with is the fud google spreads about agpl. They dont touch it because if they modify code they have to release it but they don't for reasons known to them.
Again, AGPL is NOT viral like SSPL which is like AGPL but on steroids.
Edit: we've had to ask you this at least once before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32387908. Can you please stick to the rules when posting here? We have to ban accounts that won't, and I don't want to ban you.
I could be wrong but let's see how wrong I really am.
Though I am not lawyer/license expert so that fact may be irrelevant more so using it as desktop app. But perception matters, if Goog/MSFT are not using it, a startup also won't risk using them lest some auditor flags it in next round of funding particularly if alternative is few dollars a month.
>lest some auditor flags it in next round of funding
i am an auditor and a laywer, so what is there to flag? please enlighten me.
Basically, you if you provide this software as a service to your customers, you are required to let them access the source code and modifications.
the source code of "this" software and any modifications you made. so.... whats the problem?
The problem with AGPL is, that the definitions are very open to interpretation. What is a network, how many systems do have to be between to the end user and the software component to still count as "interacting over a network", etc.
So I would also not recommend to use AGPL in your company...
Perhaps the best feature of the AGPL is that it predominately hampers companies with ineffective legal departments.
AGPL would level the playing field between Google and device manufacturers and on-prem software companies (like Apple and Microsoft).
Of course they don’t want their employees to use and indirectly support that ecosystem!
I wish they’d produce a GPL 4 that is closer to the AGPL. v3 backfired and is severely hurting end-users’ freedom in practice.
Due to their size, they must have one of the best legal department in the world. Also, their core business is search, and data processing in general. They have the means of using such software and doing what it takes to comply with the licence without putting themselves in trouble.
My guess is simply that they don't want to. They prefer to rewrite it, which will allow them to monetize their tools as proprietary software later. They are already overstaffed with some of the best developers, they can rewrite stuff, and they don't really need help from the open source community, that's why they don't release under copyleft themselves.
Viral, perhaps if you integrate a library, but in this case it doesn't make sense, you only need to distribute source code if you modify it. Poisonous makes no sense to me, can you clarify?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous
1. DESTRUCTIVE, HARMFUL
...
3. SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS
In what ways is the GPL or AGPL destructive or harmful or spiteful or malicious? I find it the exact opposite of all those concepts.
I don't typically make my decisions based on what businesses "universally decide" (have they actually?). Most businesses are shareholder or private corporations that find margin between labor and sales; I instead structured a business as a co-op and that seems to be working just fine. Many businesses profit off polluting the environment or selling weapons; I've never worked DoD or O&G (and never will) and lead an extraordinarily comfortable and privileged life regardless. Many content creator businesses lock their content behind paywalls, riddle their sites with ads and tracking; I put up a simple blog in html and css and my audience might be small but they are engaged and are in conversation with me.
I'm not trying to say i'm a special ethical snowflake that's better than everyone else, I'm saying I don't really take it as a given that "businesses doing things in a certain" way really means much of anything at all. In fact I've found often profit correlates with harm (and that businesses often make decisions that don't lead to long, long-term profits but rather pillage themselves for short-term profits), O&G being a great example, so I might even be able to take "businesses do it that way" as a warning to not do it that way or I might be hurting people.
I don't care to continue the conversation where you justify your actions to me, it's just not necessary. I just wish we would stop acting like it's confusing or we don't understand why businesses respond the way that they do when confronted with the decision to use AGPL software.
Maybe it's just a messaging/marketing problem, I don't know.
Then it's no worse than any proprietary software; if they pay for a commercial license then it's fine. Of course, if they use it internally then AGPL is also fine.