Michael R. Bernstein webmaven at
Tue Nov 2 03:01:26 UTC 2004

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 07:34, Stephen C. North wrote:
> 	The AGPL would permit someone to create a commercial service based on
> 	the application, but would require any changes to publicly deployed code
> 	be published, maintaining the users' software freedoms.
> This is just a side comment, but these days it does not seem very 
> meaningful to make a distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial"
> software or services.  
> Licenses that force people to divulge completely private property, such
> as experiments, prototypes and rough drafts, seem too intrusive.
> I know of situations where a decision was made not to use source code
> software that was otherwise very attractive because of conditions like this.

Let me clarify. The AGPL does *not* make a distinction between
commercial and non-commercial.

Any *publicly-deployed* derivative of an AGPL application (in addition
to the usual GPL requirements based on distribution) must make it's
source code available to it's users.

Private modifications can remain private, just as with the GPL. 

Michael R. Bernstein <webmaven at>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list