The AGPL does not prevent offering the software as a service. It's got a reputation as the GPL variant for an open-core business model, but it really isn't that.
Most companies trying to sell open-source software probably lose more business if the software ends up in the Debian/Ubuntu repository (and the packaging/system integration is not completely abysmal) than when some cloud provider starts offering it as a service.
um, no it's not. you have fallen into the classic web forum trap of analyzing a heterogenous mix of people with inconsistent views as one entity that should have consistent views
It exists, hence e.g. AGPL.
But for most open source licenses, that example would be within bounds. The grandparent comment objected to not respecting the license.
The AGPL does not prevent offering the software as a service. It's got a reputation as the GPL variant for an open-core business model, but it really isn't that.
Most companies trying to sell open-source software probably lose more business if the software ends up in the Debian/Ubuntu repository (and the packaging/system integration is not completely abysmal) than when some cloud provider starts offering it as a service.
Fairly sure it's the same problem and the main reason stronger licenses are appearing or formerly OSS companies closing down their sources.
you are saying X, but a completely different group of people didn't say Y that other time! I got you!!!!
It’s fair to call out that both aspects are two sides of the same coin. I didn’t try to “get” anyone
um, no it's not. you have fallen into the classic web forum trap of analyzing a heterogenous mix of people with inconsistent views as one entity that should have consistent views