[dilyevsky]

For agpl specifically I believe it’s due to muddy waters surrounding the “derivative work” clause. Some companies have traditionally bent the definition (eg insinuating that api calls result in larger application fall under combined work) and it’s never been tested in court so understandably the lawyers do the lawyer thing and tell you not to use it

[_cenw]

Not only some companies - API calls being linking also seems to be the opinion of the FSF.

[blagund]

I recall someone pointing out, AGPL only affects offering the same core functionality over network. So you cant monetize exposing as is. But you can use as a backend component. Lot of people miss that. I did too. IANAL.

[_cenw]

That's the ambiguity I mentioned. Nobody actually knows. MinIO for instance thinks you're wrong.

[merb]

garage a competitor with a rust code based think thats legal.

[Pet_Ant]

I mean I always though of AGPL as network-aware GPL so that makes sense to me. IANAL

[spaceribs]

Yeah, but even stepping back there, lawyers are paid to prevent companies from entering those muddy waters as a risk to their profits.

Profit isn't a concern to someone who wishes to publish open source software, in fact you could say Open Source is an inherently socialist venture (your socializing the tools/means to do something).

The AGPL3 makes it more difficult for others with probably more means to profit on that work, so it's a net benefit to the folks who actually write code (and a detriment to those who would wish to exploit it).

[dilyevsky]

Right so as long as food and shelter is not a concern AGPL is v good license!

[spaceribs]

Yep! I'd say 95% of open source is subsidized by those thriving rather than surviving, having the education/equipment/access/free-time to deliver open source software is a product of privilege and abundance.