Ugh I didn't see that.
My enthusiasm has instantly waned.
Why is AGPL needed? Just be MIT and make it easy for people, espefcially if you're not planning on monetising it.
I won't use AGPL code just on principle.
My enthusiasm has instantly waned.
Why is AGPL needed? Just be MIT and make it easy for people, espefcially if you're not planning on monetising it.
I won't use AGPL code just on principle.
Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious why you'd be so vehemently opposed to it.
Permissive licenses allow for proprietary forks, which may become more successful than the upstream project.
AGPL would be able to benefit from any improvements from any fork, and all those will remain OSS for everyone.
Nothing written here is related in any way to monetization.
Which fulfills the developer will of attracting higher quality users that plan to collaborate with him. You got it right :)
You got something wrong tho, If you're anywhere close to a free software/open source space, you should know that using his AGPL SQS replacement, the only thing that would need to be public is whatever you change in it, not the things you use it.
Every man and his dog has made a message queue with Postgres. Message queues are everywhere on github and often posted on HN.