Hacker News Reader

That seems like a very silly policy. Do these companies do any kind of analysis on what they'd need from their software licenses and what they'd be giving up by using AGPL?

You'd think from their attitudes that the FSF is a patent troll.

View on HN

Let's look at the advantages of using software under "permissive" licenses for those companies: - embedding somebody else's code in a closed source product and potentially compete against it - patenting somebody else's code and potentially sue the author

For the upstream author losing this type of hostile users my using AGPL might be a good idea.

It's not a silly policy. Using AGPL software (without getting a commercial license) in any modified form and/or depending on it would require all applications that use it across the network to be open sourced.

Of course this requires it to be modified which could happen accidentally and completely put a closed source application in jeopardy.

More info: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/107883/89740

Reply on news.ycombinator.com