On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:34 AM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> My impression is that AGPL has gained a reputation of a GPL version > that enables “open core” business models, and this is why most people > choose it. The FUD it creates for non-networked AGPL code appears to > be a welcome side effect, one that can be remedied with > support/service contracts or separate licensing deals. If my theory > is right, high-profile AGPL projects would use asymmetric contributor > license agreements, where the license “in” is different from the > license ”out”, and the original developer retains the ability to > relicense the code under something else than the AGPL at any time. Every AGPL-licensed project I have reviewed in $dayjob in the last seven years has been *exactly* this (including one who failed to have the proper CLA in place, so their ability to license under any other license is in doubt, but that's not my problem as I don't operate the project or the company behind it). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
