I would suggest GPL3, that would really scare away commercial users.
For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees.
For example, IBM, the owner of Red Hat, forbids the use of GPL3 software on their equipment by their employees.
> The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.
That's an overstatement. The requirement is that you make source available for your program is for "users interacting with it remotely through a computer network".
There are plenty of ways that you could let users communicate with a program on your server that do not involve remote communication through a computer network.
Could you give some examples?
One category is communication that is not through a computer network, such as through serial terminals or by voice.
Another category would be communication that is not remote. AGPL fails to define what it means by "interacting remotely", but where they use that phrase is in a section titled "Remote Network Interaction" which suggests they are using "remote" the way people generally use it in the context of networks. Remote in that context means generally not on the same LAN. If that's the case then while communication over the LAN would be over a computer network it would not be remote communication.
This I can understand. But the fact that they joined the witch-hunt for Stallman after the slandering piece by Selam Gano, who knowingly presented untrue statements as facts, and these were later picked up by mainstream media (some of these lies are still out there uncorrected[0]), that is still beyond me.
[0] Google for "Stallman defends Epstein", e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard...