[License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:34 AM Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> My impression is that AGPL has gained a reputation of a GPL version
> that enables “open core” business models, and this is why most people
> choose it.  The FUD it creates for non-networked AGPL code appears to
> be a welcome side effect, one that can be remedied with
> support/service contracts or separate licensing deals.  If my theory
> is right, high-profile AGPL projects would use asymmetric contributor
> license agreements, where the license “in” is different from the
> license ”out”, and the original developer retains the ability to
> relicense the code under something else than the AGPL at any time.

Every AGPL-licensed project I have reviewed in $dayjob in the last
seven years has been *exactly* this (including one who failed to have
the proper CLA in place, so their ability to license under any other
license is in doubt, but that's not my problem as I don't operate the
project or the company behind it).