Google is well-known for forbidding the use of software using the GNU Affero General Public License, commonly known as “AGPL”. Google is also well-known for being the subject of cargo-culting by fad startups. Unfortunately, this means that they are susceptible to what is ultimately anti-AGPL propaganda from Google, with little to no basis in fact.
Google’s page says AGPL is restrictive when it is the exact opposite of that.
It certainly does restrict their ability to freeload on the work of others.
Well, it is to developers. It forces them to have certain obligations. Not particularly difficult ones to comply with, but its massively different from say, the MIT.
Corporate entities hate having obligations though so even a small obligation is a huge problem.
That’s fair. I just don’t think how easy a licence makes it for Google to assimilate code should be the test for a code licence freedom.
As a user I would feel less restricted if the licence was AGPL. Same if I was writing something. If someone forked it and made it better I would appreciate if the licence made it imperetive for the program to remain free.
I don’t crticise devs for their choice of licence because programming for corporations pigeonholes their choices but calling AGPL restrictive turns the concept of freedom on its head.
Oh, I agree. It’s sad that many devs are buying into the anti-GPL rhetoric their workplaces spout and spreading it even to their hobby projects now too.
Just didn’t think it was fair to say there was nothing you had to do different with (A)GPL vs MIT for the devs is all :)