They're right, but they're presenting it in a way as if the toxicity of AGPL is the actual truth, and not just the opinion of greedy corporations.
Being toxic to greedy corporations but beneficial to everyone else is the point of the GPL licenses.
Being toxic to greedy corporations but beneficial to everyone else is the point of the GPL licenses.
There's nothing toxic in the AGPL for you as long as you don't want to make that code proprietary (even without making profits)
They just choose avoid agpl software. Their loss. Unfortunately they also spread FUD on this and many commenters here happily convey it.
Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]
Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software, including for commercial purposes, subject to the following conditions:
If you distribute this software, or any work derived from it, you must release the complete source code under this same licence. If you modify this software and users interact with your version over a network — as a web application, an API, or a hosted service — you must offer those users the complete source code of your version, at no charge. All copies must include this copyright notice and this licence. You may not impose additional licence restrictions beyond this.
These permissions are irrevocable and royalty-free for the term of copyright. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. This is a plain-language summary. The full legal text of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, governs all use for you.
Same rights. Same freedoms only a little more opiniated delivery. Same business card. The only difference: when someone takes your code, tweakes it and builds a service on it, the tweaks, the improvements must come back.
I work at an open source company and we always avoided using APGL for many complex legal reasons - most of our user base would use something else if we were to switch license to APGL.
May they all heard too much FUD or are plain stupid but imo the reason is more complex
> because they are stupid and evil
Yes, that was the intended meaning (evil, not stupid - on the contrary, I think that's very clever). With this I'm not qualifying small companies that bought into the FUD, but big corps that don't like that they cannot just take AGPL code and make others scared of the AGPL for no good reasons.