On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:50 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. That may be. Otoh it's also the case that in practice AGPL has been the only well known network copyleft license available. So I can imagine some projects may have chosen it just because it was the only option, even for software where it fits poorly. Henrik 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. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
