" ...the only entities capable of safely using the AGPL are companies using it to dump source ... "

I stopped reading here. But this will definitely make my day. I won't even start to list examples of companies (private sector, public sector, research, etc.) that are not in this "only entities".

Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs? The other comment mentions the diff between it and v3 is providing source, but isn't providing the revised source pretty easy?

> Can you explain why it's not safe to use for most orgs?

FUD is why. GPL and AGPL basically both state that you have to provide the source code to people who come in possesion of a copy, with AGPL stating that you also have to provide source code to users interacting with a copy of this software remotely.

Some people got it in their head that this means you have to provide the source code to everything and the kitchen sink running remotely near the computer running a single line of AGPL licensed code.

That is for SSPL license.

If I were to invest my time to build something for the community, it has to be GPL/agpl or sspl. That's my personal preference so yeah

The "FUD" exists because AGPL is poorly written.

There are many situations in which complying with clauses like this is almost impossible

> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

What kind of situations? So far none of the comments criticizing AGPL provide an example.

For example an analytics tool like Piwik couldn't really work with AGPL, as it inherently can't prominently offer anything to users.

Unless we're going to interpret "prominent" as "whatever is convenient", this clause restricts AGPL to software which is capable of prominently displaying messages to the user.

Thanks for the example, but I'm still confused. Can't you just add a button to the dashboard for "download source"

Well, that dashboard would be a different piece of software.

It's a poorly written license, it leaves you with no clear answers in this situation.

The part you quoted says you have to provide the source for the remote software on the same server as the remote software, for no charge.

How is that almost impossible?

There are many pieces of software that users interact with, but which are unable to prominently display anything at all. The AGPL license essentially forbids such uses of software.