From the license at <https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>:
"You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality"
Given that the exclusive purpose of the Software in question is to implement a managed service for its users' hosting needs, I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could take the position that this is "mostly in the spirit of FOSS".
The license might as well say, "You just can't use this."
"Bear Blog has been built as a platform and not as an individual blog generator. It is more like Substack than Hugo. Due to this it isn't possible to individually self-host a Bear Blog."
"It isn't possible" is obviously not true but a plain reading of both that combined with the license would suggest you can't use bear at all for anything.
Where does it say that?
I don't see how, there is nothing in the spirit of FOSS by doing that.
Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases.
(Edited for clarity).
Just using Linux is not enough to say anything built with it is a combined product in the eyes of the GPL, the license is pretty specific about what it considers a derivative work.
For example, you can ship closed source apps and OS on top of Linux so long as you respect the license.
Those are pretty rare when it comes to the GPL, a lot of hardware companies do not comply with it fully, in some way. Vizio is being made an example of at the moment:
Of course a company must forbid copy/paste of GPL code, because that would GPL the codebase and that's hardly what they want. But one should ask the Legal office (and/or other offices) about adding any MIT, BSD or proprietary library: credit must be given (how?), licenses must be available and compatible with the way the software is distributed. There are so many licenses out there, everything should be vetted.
Of course everything should be vetted, but lawyers have canned advice about common licenses they see often — GPL, MIT, etc.
[1] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
(AGPL, however, was nearly impossible to get permission to use)
Some companies subscribe to FUD (aka lawyers covering their ass) and forbid use of AGPL, GPL and sometimes even LGPL software outright even though they allow proprietary sofware that has even more restrictions, but the big elephant in the room that is usually cited for these open source to "proprietary but we still want the publicity of open source" license changes (AWS) is not one of those companies that put fear over profit.
Any examples when AGPL was used successfully by competitors? Typically every company prohibits using this licence.