“open source” but it’s the nonfree AGPL, and naturally RBAC and SSO are behind a paywall. I’m tired of fake open source projects that just want the street cred and free marketing.

▲

kleiba2 2 days ago | parent [-]

AGPL is as free as it gets. Perhaps the word you're looking for is non-permissive?

▲

sneak 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t believe the hype. AGPL violates free software freedoms 0 and 1. It was designed by people who think that receiving a free gift confers obligation to reciprocate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

https://sneak.berlin/20250720/the-agpl-is-nonfree/

▲

levkk 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Huh? FSF wrote AGPL and the 4 freedoms.

AGPL does not require you to share your changes if you use it (like most people) internally. It does if you host it for others as a service. Pretty fair trade.

Freedom to use, modify and distribute, clearly enforced for the Internet age.

	▲	sneak 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> AGPL does not require you to share your changes if you use it (like most people) internally. The text of the AGP License does not support this claim.

▲

thunderfork 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of the arguments in this second link fall flat (e.g. "ohh you're violating the license if you npm run on your dev machine!") and it'd be more convincing if it spent less time trying to nitpick nonsense like that and just stuck to the moral argument it's trying to make

▲

Fidelix 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]