Any open-source code would have to be released under the terms of the AGPL as well (although could potentially be dual-licensed). It could also not use GPLv2 libraries (although could use GPLv3 libraries), or libraries with other copyleft licenses for the most part.

It's... an extremely restrictive license, generally, and not one I'm comfortable using as an open-source developer. I know many others feel the same, which would lead to a lack of community, leading to a lack of community support, and potentially leading to the death of the product.

While I like the AGPL, for projects where it's appropriate (I think it fills a need to ensure that users of the software have the four freedoms, even if they only (mainly) use a service, not a local program) -- I also generally think libraries are better served by LGPL.

It's a rather complex issue -- not just how do delineate "libraries" as opposed to "derived works" -- but also how much is needed in the "main product" for it to be useful. Architecturally it might make sense to have the "program" or "service" be a thin wrapper around several libraries -- but if only the program is AGPL, and the libraries are LGPL -- how do we make sure the end user is free to maintain the software if needed?

The main thing with the GNU line of reasoning, is user rights. If viewed from the perspective as "just" a developer, many of the licenses look restrictive -- because it limits the developers power over end users.

I think we all end up with more freedom as a result of that -- not everyone agrees.

As for mixing -- I'm not sure how the "open source" exceptions in the license are supposed to affect that -- my cursory reading seemed to imply that the idea was to allow mixing with code under other licenses. But I must admit that's not a subject I've considered much.

Sure, sure. I get the goals of GNU. However, that's kind of irrelevant as to whether or not this will grow a community, and with a license that is restrictive to developers, it likely won't.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any AGPL software that's grown a significant developer community.

>It's less than 400 USD/year for a freelancer... if it's any good it should pay for itself, practically?

The problem isn't paying 400 USD/year. This is negligible cost compared to how much it costs to hire a developer. The problem is that software created in such a way wouldn't be widely used for reasons mentioned in one of my other comments.

I can't seem to find that. You mention something about risk -- but I'm not sure which risk that is. As I understand their license page, you need a license per developer. The resulting code you're free to sell under a closed license. If you want to sell work under a closed license, you're covered. If you want to sell it under an open license, you can sell it under the AGPL. Exactly what are you missing from this kind of dual-license?

I think he is trying to say he is going to miss a vibrant OSS community due to the perceived encumbrance. That's just my take.

For example, company decides to change a license, and I need a new developer. What should I do in this case especially if I work for a startup and its only product is created with this technology?

If you already have a project - you have a copy of the code under the old license. Is it really that different from a company changing from a bsd license to closed source? You'll have to negotiate or fork in either case.

I do get that there might be a question as to how you could get additional developers under the old license...

BSD license allows closed source derivative work.

In your example, the company changes the license. So you already have code under one license -- either proprietary if you've bought a license -- or under BSD. When the company owning the project decides to re-license -- you still have code under the old license. Either commercial or BSD. Right?

If it's a BSD license everything is great. If it's AGPL, which is the case for the company which we are discussing, I can't do anything without disclosing source code.

We're discussing how to do a commercial project. If you want to do a commercial project in this case, that means buying a commercial license. If it's BSD, you can also do a commercial project. If the company changes it license from commercial (to some more expensive commercial license?) -- you still have a copy of the code under the previous commercial license. If the company changes the license from BSD to a commercial license (or the AGPL or whatever) -- you still have a copy of the code under the BSD license.

If you choose to not buy a commercial license, your commercial project in this case will have to be under the AGPL, and you can sell your products, but you also have to promise your users that you will provide a copy of the source on request. I think we both understand the demands of the AGPL, and it's not readily compatible with a closed source model. But you took the example of "what if the company changes the license" -- and if you were already doing a closed source project, that would mean you were not dealing with the AGPL, but the commercial license. So again, I ask, how would the BSD protect you from that risk? Upstream is still free to change the license of future releases...?