News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Commons Clause doesn't help the commons. Parent comment

Re:The Commons Clause doesn't help the commons by stubborn_d0nkey on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @03:54AM (#17957891)
You don't have to make it available to the public if you only use it internally. You only ever have to share it with the people who use it. If it's only internally used that means you don't have to share it.

Even if it's externally used that doesn't mean it has to be freely available. If you require a paid subscription to access the AGPLed software then you only have to provide the source to those that have paid for the subscription.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Commons Clause doesn't help the commons by jimktrains2 on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @10:12AM (#17959843)
> If you require a paid subscription to access the AGPLed software then you only have to provide the source to those that have paid for the subscription.

While true, there's no restriction on the subscribers making the code public.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Commons Clause doesn't help the commons by icebraining on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @10:55AM (#17960259)
True (and one can't add it, as the license procludes doing so), but in my experience working for a company that distributed most of its software under the A/LGPL licenses to paying customers only, they aren't really interested in doing that. We never had one of our modules being publicly distributed by a third-party.
[ Parent | on HN ]