> I do not see the issue here, either.

Despite there not being an issue, there are many companies, including some very significant ones, that have restrictive rules about the use of GPL software just-in-case. Some flat out have a blanket “no GPL code at all” for the libraries and such that they use. I don't know if it still stands, but Android development at Google had a “no GPL in userspace” edict. If your service becomes big, you will get people asking you to change the licence so that they can use it.

▲

vaultsandbox a day ago | parent [-]

You are right, maybe I will change it to MIT. What is the worst that can happen?! I will think about it. Thanks

▲

dspillett 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Of wide adoption is more important than than the key benefits of strong copyleft OpenSource, then something like MIT will help, but personally I'd keep with AGPL3.

I wasn't advocating for change in my previous comments, just pointing out that a fair number of people will ask for that, and why they would. IMO "we can't use it under this license because of company policy" is a them problem, not a you problem!

	▲	vaultsandbox 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is no point in having AGPL if no one uses it! I am the only contributor right now, so I have time to think. I need to change my message. I will talk less about encryption and production. I will talk more about localhost testing benefits. 1. Isolated inbox per test (parallel-safe by default) 2. Deterministic email assertions, no sleeps 3. One container: SMTP, Web UI, CLI 4. Automatic cleanup with expiring inboxes 5. Secure by default, no config required I got some upvotes, but almost no feedback, negative or positive.