The copyleft licenses are toxic for adoption. Companies default away from them because there are a lot of murky unknowns (e.g. if you run a copyleft service and connect to it via API, is that extending it? Does that service’s source have to be shared?) that simply aren’t worth the hassle.
If you want your library to get traction with many real world use cases, you need to have a permissive license. If you want to stick to the principles, you’re going to sacrifice adoption.
Not saying one is better than the other, but there’s a tradeoff.
> if you run a copyleft service and connect to it via API, is that extending it
No, it isn't; a client talking to an AGPLv3 service over a network API stays a separate program and is not touched by the license at all. Section 13 places obligations solely on whoever runs a modified version of the service, while remote users, API clients included, only gain the right to receive that service's source. So nothing on the client side must suddenly become AGPLv3, and the only thing that ever has to be shared is the AGPL'd program itself, not anything across the API boundary. The first half of your post is basically unfounded FUD; the second half tracks.
You may think this. I may think this. But what really matters is if the lawyers for your customers think this. It may be pure FUD, but AGPL projects have a tough time getting adoption in companies because they would rather avoid the problem than be wrong.
We have been running a business on exactly the opposite premise for over 20 years, and we're not really seeing that problem with the adoption of Proxmox VE or our other (AGPLv3) FLOSS projects that we provide commercial enterprise support for. Very rarely, a potential customer doing extra due diligence, and not yet used to working with FLOSS much, wonders about exactly this - which is also the main reason I bothered writing anything here, as spreading such FUD further only hurts everyone involved. In those cases, a simple reply that a) this makes no sense (more on that below) and b) an assurance in writing that none of their software running on top of, or interfacing with, any of our APIs has to be relicensed settles it. That assurance is technically useless, as it doesn't grant them anything extra, but it costs us nothing either.
And the reason it makes no sense is that by your logic, any tool that can consume some (e.g. HTTP-based REST) API would have to be open-sourced the moment I get it to fetch data from my AGPLv3 service. No offense meant at all, but that would simply be bizarro world, and there is enough precedent against it. If APIs did not act as clear boundaries, AGPLv3 software would indeed spread to everything it touches or traverses, like an epidemic. If yours or your customers' lawyers claim otherwise, you/they should get ones with an actual understanding of software and IP law.
This is true, unfortunately. I've have had to walk away from a client because their software-illiterate lawyer didn't want me to build with copyleft dependencies.
It wasn't the only red flag in this case, but frustrating nonetheless.
Well if it's a commercial project what did you expect? The problem there is working for free for a corporation's benefit - copyright assignment or not.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, you're right. Using software that has requires people to contribute back is a huge liability, and hurts adoption, which is the most important metric for herdr right now.
You can totally make profits by selling services based on AGPL code btw, it's completely fine. As long as you redistribute your derivative work as AGPL too.
There's nothing toxic in the AGPL for you as long as you don't want to make that code proprietary (even without making profits)
No. There's no restriction of usage in the (A)GPL. Anyone, including big corps, can use AGPL software. Preventing them to use the software is not the point neither. The point is trying to ensure end user freedom.
They just choose avoid agpl software. Their loss. Unfortunately they also spread FUD on this and many commenters here happily convey it.
AGREED! Its sheer insanity to call the AGPL toxic. The license is actually quite simple if a little wordy. They should have accompanied it with a preamble that was super clear and to the point.So here it is in our 170 words for you to read, share, and use:
Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]
Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software, including for commercial purposes, subject to the following conditions:
If you distribute this software, or any work derived from it, you must release the complete source code under this same licence. If you modify this software and users interact with your version over a network — as a web application, an API, or a hosted service — you must offer those users the complete source code of your version, at no charge. All copies must include this copyright notice and this licence. You may not impose additional licence restrictions beyond this.
These permissions are irrevocable and royalty-free for the term of copyright. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. This is a plain-language summary. The full legal text of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, governs all use for you.
Same rights. Same freedoms only a little more opiniated delivery. Same business card. The only difference: when someone takes your code, tweakes it and builds a service on it, the tweaks, the improvements must come back.
The “just choose to avoid” (because they are stupid and evil?) is very reductive.
I work at an open source company and we always avoided using APGL for many complex legal reasons - most of our user base would use something else if we were to switch license to APGL.
May they all heard too much FUD or are plain stupid but imo the reason is more complex
It has always seemed weird that companies are happy to use proprietary software but avoid AGPL software like plague. AGPL being a free software license, usage is not restricted. There's nothing forbidden. If you only intend to use the software, then the situation is trivial. You have unrestricted right to use it. There's absolutely no complexity there. Proprietary software has strictly more restrictions on usage and is more legally complex.
> because they are stupid and evil
Yes, that was the intended meaning (evil, not stupid - on the contrary, I think that's very clever). With this I'm not qualifying small companies that bought into the FUD, but big corps that don't like that they cannot just take AGPL code and make others scared of the AGPL for no good reasons.
Seems like the path is to use LLMs to launder code from VC funded efforts and their public codebases into codebases with a copyleft license. Otherwise you have to wait for the rug pull before taking action (Terraform and Vault->OpenTofu and OpenBao). It is fair use to train and create derivative works after all, as courts have ruled so far.
You can just take someone else's permissively licensed code and relicense it AGPL, or even proprietary if you want to. Corporations want it proprietary but the same trick works for copyleft.
For bonus points make sure your fork has better SEO than the original, so when someone who heard it's permissive embeds it in a proprietary product, you can sue them.
I don’t know that this qualifies as enshitification… on one hand, the author created something that scratched his own itch, shared it, and now it’s become a tool that he wishes to steward into a way where he can make money.
I don’t know that these are terrible things inherently, it kind of depends if he wishes to extract as money as possible from his users by any means necessary or if he’s truly trying to scale it so it can help people. All we have is this article and infinite speculation.
I personally didn’t find herdr useful, so I have no stake in the direction of what the author decides to do with herdr.
In my cynical view, herder now seems to be an attempt to commercialize tmux by adding superficial polish. I am wary of VC backed developer tools that seek to innovate in well established open source niches. Herdr by default is mouse focused, has very friendly UI interactions, and has some niche UI support for agents running in panes. Great. Now it also has a profit motive and ROI pressures. I don't see this ending well.
If he wants to make money he needs to sell licenses, not give them away for free. To that end, making the free version AGPL is generally a good move. It ensures people can get hooked on your product and when they start working at corporations they have to pay to keep using it.
Enshitification is 100% guaranteed with any vc backing. Maybe not now, but definitely in the future it is the literal point of venture capital. Gain adoption, then exploit to the maximum extent possible.
It’s fine to use these kind of tools, just don’t get too attached and be ready for the rug pull.
No, of course not, they're your friends. They even have a ping pong table and a smoothie bar. It's like in the Soviet Union, everyone's a comrade, nobody's a boss
I'm curious what the actual problems with AGPL were.