[Conan_Kudo]

> This might be a kneejerk reaction, but why does he feel the world is entitled to the labor of a programmer for "free"? What's his alternative business/labor model? Is it compatible with capitalism? What am I missing here?

He doesn't refer to "free" as of cost, but "free" as in "freedom". The Free Software model fully permits that software is only available to people who pay for it, they would just get source+binaries and would have the rights to redistribute as they please.

Most companies who use this model tend to dual-license, though. That is, a copyleft license for most people, and for those who fear it, they can purchase an exception to use it as proprietary software. In years gone by, this was GPL/proprietary, but in this world of SaaS/SaaSS, AGPL has supplanted the GPL as the "toxic" license of choice to encourage companies to buy licenses.

[rhizome]

Can you expand on "toxic" as it applies to AGPL and why it's in scare quotes?

[paulryanrogers]

IIRC it requires open sourcing everything involved in a service, unlike the GPL

[rhizome]

I'd like to see something more specific, everything I can find does not say this. Just the modifications.

[Conan_Kudo]

You're absolutely correct, but there's a lot of misinformation, largely attributed to people's understanding of earlier versions of the AGPL, before the GNU project adopted it and reworked it for AGPLv3.