[fmajid]

If you work in a startup, it will bite you during due diligence when a potential acquirer is evaluating your intellectual property. I would give the AGPL a wide berth.

[giancarlostoro]

This is why I avoid AGPL projects for potential ideas / side projects that could potentially turn useful.

[tptacek]

You avoid using it, or avoid using third party code that uses it?

The latter makes sense. The former does not, as you can relicense any time you want.

[mbakke]

Only if you are the sole copyright holder, i.e. no (nontrivial) external contributions.

[giancarlostoro]

Which is why I avoid it directly, unless I'm not touching the code at all. If I'm just using it as-is, then I don't care.

[lucasyvas]

You can always change the license.

[flynnsdeadman]

except you cannot, once its AGPL youre stuck with it

[pmontra]

If you're the owner of the code, all the past versions of the project are and will be AGPL forever (or MIT, or BSD) but all the new versions will be whatever you want. You can also dual license. If someone forks the old AGPL version (or MIT, or BSD) they can keep that license on the fork, but they can't use your new code.

[zwily]

Yes, this is why so many projects have Contributor License Agreements - so the project owner can relicense at will.

It’s also why you shouldn’t sign a CLA if you disagree with that possibility.