What ticks me off is freeloading on the goodwill generated by open source, for instance, by calling your license "Apache License Version 2 with the Commons Clause" or by insisting that "source available" is actually "open source". In other words, what you're trying to do here. That goodwill doesn't belong to you. Don't try to steal it, and don't be surprised when those who are invested in open source push back hard when you do.
I never said that. I said the lines are blurry when it comes to how the AGPL is used in business
The AGPL isn't used to uphold OSS values, it's used as a defense against competition.
It's only a defense against competitors who want to use it and not give back -- just like the original GPL. If you prefer the BSD ethos, that's fine, but just say "I disagree with the copyleft philosophy", not "AGPL doesn't uphold OSS values".
The only way to accept contributions and then make closed-source modifications is with a CLA; in which case it's the CLA, not the AGPL that you're really complaining about.
ETA: OK, so what if a company start out being AGPL, never accepts any contributions, and then when they become established, stop publishing new code as AGPL and takes everything proprietary? Isn't that just "open-washing", taking advantage of all the community good-will and hype around open source?
I don't think so; consider four possible scenarios:
1. They keep everything proprietary from the beginning.
1a. They become established, making decent money, serving some customer needs. Everything is still proprietary
1b. They fail. Good luck talking their VCs at that point into open-sourcing their code (or even getting it into any kind of shape that anyone could use). All their customers are stuck without any options but to stop using the software.
2. They start by making things AGPL.
2a. They become established, making decent money; eventually they take the product closed-source, doing one final release. Their customers continue to be served, but everything is now proprietary.
2b. They fail. The code is already AGPL, so nothing any of their owners or creditors can do to claw it back. Large companies that have come to depend on their software can take their code and continue to use it and develop it on their own if they want. If there's enough of the right kind of people, a community can form around the releases and the project can live on in a pure open-source form.
2a is better than 1a, because at least there was a time when things were AGPL; the AGPL code can still be forked off and maintained if there's a big enough community.
2b is way better than 1b. In fact, 2b can hopefully make 2a more likely, since it's lower risk for people to build their infrastructure on a start-up.
I'd rather OSS startups be more honest and use something like Fair Source. Bonus is that everything would eventually be OSS, unlike the typical Open Core model.
The difference is that all users also eventually get the proprietary features, unlike an Open Core project under AGPL + commercial terms. I do think Fair Source is a better model than Open Core, at least in most cases, because of this alone. So I guess, would you rather: 1) never have the proprietary features, or 2) have 2-year old proprietary features? I know what I'd prefer, and from a simple continuity perspective, I know which is preferred by users.
Like I said, I'm not saying AGPL is bad. I just don't like how it's used in startup-land and I think there are better, more honest, options now.
Fair source is a poison pill masquerading as OSS-friendly, just like BSL and friends. It's not useful in practice, and I don't think there are any examples of folks successfully using/forking BSL/fair-source code that is now OSS. That's by design.
Re: forking FSS. Check out what Oxide is doing with CockroachDB -- there's your BUSL example.
I believe the usual AGPL idea is that it generates sufficient FUD for regular customers so that they don't want to run the free (AGPL) version in production. Instead, they feel compelled to cut a separate, commercial licensing deal. A project/product is likely to follow thus model if the nominally AGPLed project has a contributor licensing agreement that involves an asymmetric copyright grant (i.e., contributions are under a very permissive license, but you only get the aggregate of all contributions under the AGPL).
If they are looking to invest in a company when they do technical due diligence and bring in a source code auditing company like Synopsis Black Duck any AGPL you're using is so problematic for them it can be a deal breaker. At a minimum it's such a major sticking point it can be one of the most significant things to hold up a transaction as you try to explain why it isn't as problematic as they think.
Having been through that process a couple of times I won't touch AGPL because it's such a PIA - your poison pill.
On the flip side, if they have or are investing in you and and you've made some aspect of your solution open source under AGPL they know any competitor using it is going to have challenges getting VC investment (see point above).
I died laughing at his comment later in the article. I still don’t know what his product is but to have such a broken misconception of free and open source, I really don’t want to know what he’s trying to sell.
Users are free to use the version under AGPL, there is no poison pill.
OSS startups use this to their advantage to push enterprises to purchase commercial licenses.
Bill Gates from the 1990's called, he wants his FUD back.
To be more specific: What arguments can be used to show that the AGPL is a "poison pill" in the SaaS space, which couldn't have been used by Microsoft back in the 90's and early 2000's to show that GPL was a "poison pill" in the distributed software space?
Microsoft was consistently and openly opposed to open source back in the day. Now we have startups that are simultaneously claiming to be open source while using FUD to advance an essentially non-commercial interpretation of open source. It's not the same situation.
I mean they summarised that are the very beginning of their post. They're not being shy about this. The entire post is about them making money.
> But I'll be honest with you: Briefer is a VC-backed company, and it must make money.