[gnalck]

Those who have reservations about the terms of AGPLv3 - would any of you prefer if it was licensed under BUSL1.1 (i.e., source-available or eventually-open-source) instead? I'm curious to see the perspectives of businesses as to whether AGPLv3 or BUSL-1.1 is a "bigger risk" when compared to the previous Apache 2.0 license.

My gut feeling is that those passionate about open source on the whole will tend to prefer AGPLv3, while businesses or those making decisions on the behalf of a business, may prefer BUSL-1.1. I think there are trade offs with either approach.

[richardwhiuk]

The BUSL is worse - obscure licenses are problematic.

The problem with the AGPL is it's very unclear what counts as linking, and this has never been tested in court, and that it's not clear what "network access" needs to look like.

[josephcsible]

> My gut feeling is that those passionate about open source on the whole will tend to prefer AGPLv3, while businesses or those making decisions on the behalf of a business, may prefer BUSL-1.1.

Your gut is onto something. People who care about something bigger than themselves prefer AGPL, while those who only care about their own profits prefer BUSL.