[flagged]
Now I can see how this might be a problem for code libraries, infrastructure system etc but the only reason to worry about AGPL in an end user application context is the desire to repackage and sell commercially. Aka do the Amazon thing.
Prompt is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37611571
--
More seriously and charitably though, affero is vaguely scary because there's a (perhaps misunderstood, but I can understand) feeling that if you cooperate with it in any way in the backend and then a value-added product of that interaction makes it to a user of yours then you're up for copyright infringement.
This isn't a reason not to release under affero, nor is it a bad thing that entities producing non-free software need to take care what they leverage, but I can see how the decision could be made to avoid using agpl style software whereever possible to err on the side of caution.
A good example is ghostscript. At what point does an app converting PDFs to images (to display thumbnails, for example) as a small part of its workflow become an aggregate of that free software? According to the faq it ends up being a fairly subjective question of form and intent. Syscalls or static linking? Etc.
What is often misunderstood about Affero?
As I could not reply to your other thread as you were banned
The best I can do is direct people to the GNU FAQs on the topic
Where do you even get this from?
Here's from Leantime's own FAQ (https://leantime.io/pricing/): "We are GPL-2 and require code updates to be submitted back to the core code. We offer Enterprise licenses if you’d like to modify the code to use for company use."
The pattern is effectively always the same. Many companies use this license to offer a free version while offering a "way out" by providing an "enterprise license". They get you hooked because it's open source. But as soon as you want to customize and keep the changes, they want to charge you.
It's a matter of personal choice. I choose NOT to use any Affero licensed software if I can help it.
"But as soon as you want to customize and keep the changes, they want to charge you"
Neither GPL nor AGPL require you to submit anything back (or charges you) for changes made to your system for your own usage. Even if it is within a company. It is about preventing distributing derivates to the public under closed source licenses.
You can even have and keep changes (unpublished) for you entire organization without having to contribute back. It is when you distribute it back to public that you have to license the changes under the same license.
There is no baiting here.
From section 13: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software."
Your statement is incorrect: "You can even have and keep changes (unpublished) for you entire organization without having to contribute back. It is when you distribute it back to public that you have to license the changes under the same license."
Even *HOSTING* a private instance puts you under Affero. Even if the instance isn't public, if you so much as have a contractor remotely accessing an internal deployment of a customized Affero-licensed software then they can ask for this customization.
" Even if the instance isn't public, if you so much as have a contractor remotely accessing " -- Correct, now you are distributing the software to the "public" external to your own needs.
How do you run the code on your local computer if the code was not distributed to you?
It is similar as the old days of having to distribute to you the compiled code for you to install on your local computer.
But afaik you only have to provide the source to your users? You're never obligated to contribute back? So if you make in-house changes, this shouldn't matter much.