It is compatible. The people who have a say are the people who write the code. If you are not comfortable with dual licensing, don't contribute upstream.

You can fork such dual licensed project, add your own contributions and then Signal cannot use your code in anything they license to third-parties under non-AGPL. The fork becomes AGPL-only.

Example of where this has happened: MySQL was forked to MariaDB, so developments to MariaDB cannot be used by Oracle in their proprietary licensing of MySQL.

It is compatible if one of the licenses offered is actually a real open source license that is available to all. The AGPL is really an open source license. Licenses which restrict based on type of use or characteristics of user are not.

It's not compatible with FOSS from a dogmatic point of view, but I think it's a pragmatic way forward given how AWS and other actors act. I dual license my company's products in this manner.

Even Stallman isn't completely opposed to selling exceptions to copyleft licences.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

Oh wow, I retract my statement then. I wasn't aware of this. I thought for sure RMS wouldn't approve.

I don't think it's compatible with the sprit of FOSS.

You're giving the company (in this case Signal) an open-ended license for your contributions whilst they don't return the favour. And so whilst they can offer a proprietary version e.g. Signal Pro with a friendlier license e.g. BSD you can't.

And what kind of underpins all of this is that many companies especially in the enterprise will not touch anything that is GPL or AGPL.

Huh? This is like saying that the AGPL isn't compatible with FOSS. I've heard stories that there was a window of time where RMS was advocating for the AGPL terms to be incorporated into GPL3. If your definition of FOSS excludes the GPL --- as your last sentence suggests --- your definition is... unusual.

The key of the comment you're responding to is signing away copyright, not AGPL/GPL.

FOSS is a very big umbrella that incorporates a wide variety of licenses.

But for me AGPL is not in the spirit of FOSS. It's like you're an unpaid employee of some company who is happy to take your work as long as you don't compete with them.

I understand why AGPL was invented i.e. to prevent AWS ripping your project off but I don't think it's a particularly fair license for individual contributors.

agpl was definitely not invented to prevent AWS stealing your project.

Affero predates AWS by a lot. It was invented because FSF wants users to be able to see software they are using, but they cannot if it’s a remote server.

It has been used recently as magic anti-AWS wand, but it wasn’t built for that

edit: I am wrong in my dating! Affero is 2007, AWS was launched 2006. But yeah it was never meant as anti-AWS magic wand.

I think you are being pedantic.

Aws , TiVo , whatever . Lots of orgs exploited the contractual logic gap in gpl v2. Aws is the latest in a long list of freeloaders .

I license all my / my startups code under AGPL v3. I don’t offer anyone proprietary license and I don’t ask anyone for CLA.

Defense against freeloaders and also tyrant. My operating agreement for my LLC has language about this stuff. It’s that core to our DNA.

At the point where you've defined the FSF out of FOSS, you've departed the ordinary definition of the term.

Interestingly the FSF also requires copyright assignment for contributions to GCC, Emacs and some other GNU software.

The FSF does appear to prefer copyright assignment over DCOs[1], but as of last year GCC contributions only require a DCO[2].

[1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/FSF-copyright-handling [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/857791/

That is good news, thank you! And I apologize for spreading incorrect information.

Aren't you talking about copyright assignments rather than AGPL? You can definitely compete using AGPL, you just have to publish your changes (without necessarily assigning the copyrights), just like the company you're competing with has to if they start using your changes and you haven't assigned your copyrights to them.

With BSD, you're giving every company the right to take your code and use it without returning any favour at all.

With the CLA it's the same. But at least Signal give back by still providing libsignal as free software.

It depends on your motivations for contributing. If you don't like the CLA or any other things, you can still fork. Even if it may not be compatible with your own motivations, it is still in the spirit of free software.