| We considered AGPL but recently adopted the BSL: https://www.zerotier.com/on-the-gpl-to-bsl-transition/ Lots of open source people don't like it as it is not technically an OSI open source license. I'm not in love with it either, but it was the best solution available for now. We are exploring other alternatives. The problem with the AGPL is unfortunately that it has the letters G, P, and L in it. You'd be shocked to learn just how many potential customers have no-GPL policies or are otherwise just allergic to the GPL. There is a lot of FUD and misconceptions out there. Lots of companies won't allow anything GPL to be used internally in connection with any code or product. (Linux seems to get grandfathered in, but they don't like GPL for anything new.) Most of this is fallout from Microsoft's 1990s - early 2000s anti-GPL FUD campaign, and the memes from that are still circulating. Lots of people think GPL code is "viral" in the sense that if it touches your code in any way whatsoever it somehow magically GPLs it. MS spent millions to muddy the waters around the GPL. Yes it's FUD and it's typically rooted in misconceptions, but it's very common and from a sales point of view it's a waste of time to try to fight it. It's hard enough to educate customers about your product without also having to educate them about the license. If it weren't for this issue we'd consider AGPL, but it's really not perfect. What we really need is a modern license that addresses the "SaaSification" phenomenon, which AGPL does partly but not fully, while at the same time being simple to understand and compatible with as much of the rest of the OSS ecosystem as possible. AGPL is more complicated than I would prefer while also not being quite the right thing. I'm starting to think we'll have to make one. If we do we will open source it for others to use. |