@Tadano @troed @element @skylar I don't know the soft nor the details, so take it with big salt because details matter in these things.
AGPLv3 and GPLv3 can grant some permission thanks to section 7, like allowing binding with third party code (like a plugin) without changing its license. The whole program has network properties of AGPL, including the soft in a bigger one triggers the (A)GPL, but you can have non (A)GPL modules.
This is the same section allowing a compiler to produce non-AGPL code for ex.
Still, it means that you can't put arbitrary barriers in the AGPL code without people being angry and removing them, or remove features without people putting them back in a fork, as in any free software.
And for the company doing that, I would look at their governance model: if they are VC funded/part of Big Corp, the whole floss part is likely just public relations in any case, and that model ir a pure AGPL is not a very strong clue: there's a lot of cases where it happened in the last years, with whole code base going dark. See for example the recent case for Puppet.
Well actually, whatever the governance, a company doing that is not a free software good citizen.
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread | More toots from fanf42@treehouse.systems
=> View Tadano@amala.schwartzwelt.xyz profile | View troed@ioc.exchange profile | View element@mastodon.matrix.org profile | View skylar@misskey.yandere.love profile
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).