People who use GPLv3 want the code to stay open/libre under any circumstances. If this is the goal, why not use the AGPL instead, even for applications which are not served over a network?

This takes away the possibility that people integrate parts of your program into a proprietary network application, even if this seems improbable. There’s nothing to loose with using this license, but potentially some gain.

Only reason I can think of is that AGPL is less known and trusted which may harm adoption.

    • linuxPIPEpower@discuss.tchncs.de
      13·
      1 year ago

      @rbn@feddit.ch made a well structured comment using bullet points. It can be read pretty quickly but I guess the tldr is the last line:

      There is a lot of uncertainty when using AGPL software in a business context which will - in many cases - lead to the decision not to use the software at all.

      if you want to know why you have to spend 20 seconds reading the preceding text.

    • patsw
      3·
      1 year ago

      Both GPL and AGPL are open software liceneses which create an obligation on people who “publish” the binary. (“Publish” is a term of art here.) The difference is when the obligation is triggered: In the case of AGPL it adds the obligation when a modified version is used over a network to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, the mere public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version of the AGPL licensed software.