Do you have data on that last bit, or just a guess? As a hobbyist and OSS developer I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else.

▲

pocksuppet a day ago | parent | next [-]

If you don't want to give people downstream of you my source code, I'm happy to sell you a commercial license.

	▲	knorker a day ago \| parent [-]
		This means you have only solved the problem for large companies, and specifically those who have money and who have a functioning procurement system that's developer-driven. Which is a very narrow use case. Also relevant comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596403

▲

nine_k 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But that's the whole point of dual AGPL + commercial licensing.

	▲	knorker a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but for anything except large companies it has a bootstrapping problem. I'm absolutely not going to use AGPL software in a test one-person trying to sell a service kind of deal. So if it takes off, I'm already on a non-AGPL stack, so why reach out at that point to get a commercial license for software I don't even use? And hell, even without money involved, I'm not going to make a hobby project with AGPL software either. Not only may I have small parts of the project I've not opensourced, but AGPL is untested in how far the virality goes. Are my backup cronjobs in scope? I certainly don't want to be the test case for this. Even if I win against an AGPL troll, I'll still lose.