[jcwayne]

I find presenting this as an open source alternative to commercial solutions a little disingenuous when any commercial use of it also requires a paid license. Like many other cases it seems like the AGPL is functioning more as a trial license.

[francoismassot]

Well, I would say it depends. We have many companies using the AGPL version without buying a license. We also know that some companies have strict policies and will forbid using AGPL software unless taking a commercial license. We're happy with both users.

I like the example of Grafana with all their AGPL projects (Grafana, Loki, Tempo, ...). There are a LOT of companies using Grafana with the AGPL version.

[dwb]

The GNU AGPL is considered a Free Software licence by the OSI, FSF, and the Debian project. That's good enough for me.

[fulmicoton]

You can use AGPL for commercial use. The limitation is that you will have to opensource any patch you make to it.

[datadeft]

You can double license software and have a non-AGPL license for customers. AGPL is a must nowadays to avoid Amazon and other giant companies like it to "steal" your project and start offering the same thing initially (2-3) cheaper while you are going out of business.

[hippich]

Ianal, but afaik one is required to release patches to the product itself only if product functionality is exposed to customers. If it is internal tool, patches I believe can stay internal. But if you want to offer, for example, hosted solution based on this product - then you are required to release modifications.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

I find AGPL perfect for this use case, and my org (>100k hosts) can use it without any problem as we are using it for internal purposes, and not, say, rebranding it and offering as a part of our own product.