[auggierose]

From gleaning at the repo's license, they use AGPL. So that seems tailored towards building a business around it. I find that quite exciting, because I have been thinking about which license to use for a project of mine as well, so that a) it is open-source, and b) I can build a business on top of it. AGPL seems to fit the bill perfectly, as long as you are careful about the license of contributions.

[farukaydin]

We spent some time to research about licenses. AGPL allows us to keep it open source and also build a business around it as you said.

[benatkin]

Is technically open source the best kind of open source? It is open source according to the OSI, but many including myself are interested in open source for specific reasons that the AGPL doesn't satisfy.

[corobo]

Isn't the use of AGPL specifically to stop many including yourself's specific reasons? They want to build a business off it, not build your business off it.

If the license doesn't work for your use case, the license seems to have done its job successfully.

[pabs3]

The AGPL is for preserving software freedom in today's networked, service-as-a-software-substitute world. It isn't supposed to be for building a business.

[corobo]

The ability to communicate is for warning our tribe of danger. It isn't supposed to be for talking about open source software.

Intentions and realities are often different. Such is life.

[pabs3]

What can't you do with AGPL stuff that you want to do?