[bigfishrunning]

> we have a GPL’ed library here that we can use but now all of a sudden the vitality of the license means we have to replace it?

The "we're not distributing it" loophole is why the AGPL exists. So yeah, even though you can technically not violate the gpl by not distributing the server, don't do that, it's scummy. Better to just not use gpl code at all.

[Filligree]

Respectfully disagree. The AGPL exists for that use case, and the difference is exactly that you need to distribute the changes.

If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.

For me, that means I use a mix of AGPL and MIT depending on project.

[Dylan16807]

> If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.

GPL has always meant you're okay with someone making local changes for their own internal use.

When it comes to servers, someone making a project this decade that uses GPL might be signalling they're okay with server code staying closed source. Or it might be other reasons, like the uncertainty over what code is covered by AGPL. And if a project is older, there's an increasing chance they didn't expect the current ecosystem and hate that the code is being used this way.