| ▲ | NoGravitas 6 days ago | |
> veiled intentions The intentions behind the AGPL were never veiled. The intent was to close the loophole in the GPL3 that is opened by providing software as a network service. If you were to release software that provides a network service under the GPL3, someone else could use and modify it without sharing their changes, but while also providing it as a service. AGPL3 closes this loophole by ensuring that everyone who can use the software must have access to the source including any changes. I don't see any deceit, and I don't even see any anti-competitiveness. | ||
| ▲ | ezekg 6 days ago | parent [-] | |
If you read the conversation higher up, instead of taking what I said out of context, you'd see that I was talking about the author veiling their intentions, i.e. using the AGPL as an effective non-compete while masquerading as "open source." They (the author aka the startup) wouldn't have chosen the AGPL if not for enterprises/bigtech/competition being scared of it. They didn't choose AGPL to increase freedom 0 (AGPL's purpose), they chose it to decrease it. Thus, veiled intentions. | ||