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.

  • cbarrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linux, coreutils, LLVM, GCC, Chromium, Firefox, V8, Python, Postgres, Java, systemd, kubernetes, Docker, Bazel, Buck, Abseil, Guice, Fedora, Ubuntu, Android, Hadoop, Apache, Nginx, Spark, TensorFlow, PyTorch…

    Yeah, companies never contributed to open source.

    • Tobias Hunger@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of your examples are projects started by a company. The very few remaining are those 0.01% that got lucky.

      My point stands: When you start an open source project, there is no need to worry about what companies might like or not. You will not get money from anyone.