[normalnorm]

> As it is right now it's dead in the water for any commercial usage

So what? If companies need a certain software, they can pay for it. I remember a time when FOSS was not about providing companies with free work, quite the opposite indeed.

[oneplane]

It is presented as being enterprise-ish, for organisations (of which a lot are commercial) and presents features usually useful for large companies. That's what.

This isn't about good/bad or something like that, just an odd presentation that doesn't seem to be in line with the license. There is nobody to pay here to use this stuff because you still won't be able to integrate it without also sharing internal IP.

There are plenty of organisations that would happily pay what they'd normally pay Atlassian to use Wiki.js but they can't because they don't want to share any of their own code. This is also why license guides like the one from google explicitly bans all AGPL software because it's not worth the risk.

[cxr]

So it's working as intended then.

It's a bit weird to comment on this as if it's an oversight or unintended downside. Suppose you keep going into someone's house and they don't want you to, so they do something to dissuade you (like putting locks on their doors). You then complain that you can't get in. Their likely response? "Well, yeah..."

[fungos]

These company make changes to Atlassian code? You're conflating internal or public use with derivative work or service offering. You clearly misunderstand licensing.