from Hacker News

Don’t believe the hype, AGPL open source licensing is toxic and unpopular

by housemusicfan on 8/28/23, 4:00 PM with 1 comments

• by kemotep on 8/28/23, 5:27 PM

  So personally, I find the LGPL for libraries, GPL for local software, AGPL for remote software, and Apache license for small line count/scripts recommendations from the Free Software Foundation to be pretty straightforward. I guess I can understand why developers might prefer a “permissive” license that allows them to lockdown the project and not have to share modifications they make but to me at least, I am always completely baffled by the arguments that the GPL/AGPL are nightmarish to use and that you must avoid it.

  If you want to build a business off of open source, giving back your modifications is just part of the game? Don’t build your business off of open source software if you don’t want any changes you make to be open source? That seems simple enough to me.

  I guess I just don’t understand the hate this article has for it at all. It might as well be a rant against Micro$oft and their evil proprietary licensing practices, telling developers not to build a business off of dotnet software.

  The GPL’s preamble is about the inalienable rights of software users. It restricts the “developer’s rights” so as to protect the rights of others. Like how you aren’t free to murder people as that would violate their rights. That isn’t a totalitarian anti-freedom system.

  Also, this should have a 2017 in the title.