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

[Henrik Ingo]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:50 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.


That may be. Otoh it's also the case that in practice AGPL has been the
only well known network copyleft license available. So I can imagine some
projects may have chosen it just because it was the only option, even for
software where it fits poorly.

Henrik


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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190924/f64c29df/attachment.html>