[kruffalon]

It warms my old heart when projects use the AGPL (or GPL) licence.

It's a "small" thing to do that tells me that you're not just waiting for VC but actually really care about your work and the world.

(I'm not saying that MIT or other similar licences are used exclusively by people that don't care, I understand that sometimes you just don't have the bandwidth)

[yunohn]

I don’t understand where you’re saying. A/GPL generally just means corporate won’t use your solution, and that others won’t integrate and as such, monetize your solution. You can still be VC funded and monetize your own GPL code yourself? The Zed editor is a great example.

[keysdev]

>corporate won’t use your solution

Look at all the liunx foundations dominated by ms, oracle playing out their corporate politics. Would take that as as good thing.

[kruffalon]

I'm just saying I get warm fuzzy feelings, that's all <3

[conradev]

I guess I’m curious how it applies here. The plugins communicate over a socket, and then the plugins are loaded into an editor. I assume the editor doesn’t need to be AGPL, because nvim is Apache 2 and VS Code is MIT.

But does the plugin need to be AGPL? Does it also have to be “replaceable” where a static build of nvim would violate the license? Can someone bundle a custom written client into a proprietary editor?

[register]

I don't understand. What would prevent the authors from guaranteeing the VCs re-licensing under a different model?

[kruffalon]

Nothing.

It just warms my heart to see the (A)GPL being used in the same way that seeing a friendly gesture, a patient caretaker, punks, hippies, queers or other things I associate with kindness and community building in the wild.