| ▲ | poulpy123 6 days ago | |
I understand the reasoning and I also understand the interest of still providing the sources. I'm however curious why the MIT license was chosen instead of the AGPL if competition was a concern | ||
| ▲ | didibus 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
AGPL doesn't prevent others from reselling your software no? I thought it only mandated that they also release their own source modifications. He seems to claim 3rd parties are offering bearblog commercially without modifications (or with useless modifications, like just a changed name). | ||
| ▲ | tptacek 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Presumably it wasn't a concern when they started and became one later; after all, they changed the license. | ||