maybe if you are a lawyer, and if you are trying to get around the license somehow, or of you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging, but as a FOSS user and developer, it is pretty straightforward: the software runs on a server, you connect to it, you get access to the source that is running on the server. if you believe in the spirit of Free Software then there is no question what you should do.
if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that.
also, consider that the AGPL is trying to be compatible to the GPL. that forces it to be more complicated. the OSL doesn't have that problem, and the OSL is also not compatible with the GPL, which is only ok if you don't want to integrate any other GPL software. although i suppose since the GPL doesn't require distribution on network access, this may not be an issue. but i don't know, i am not a lawyer. and so to be sure, i'll prefer the AGPL.
> if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that.
Kyle’s point is pretty clear: it’s really hard to tell what agpl actually requires. So it’s a bad, unclear license whatever your position is - whether you think your code should virally make everything that links it open source, or if you expressly don’t want that and only want the library itself network copyleft. What does agpl actually require? Even lawyers are stumped.
but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details. the details only matter for those who are not into FOSS and are forced to comply with the license without having the desire to do so.
one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception.
so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.
> but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details.
That’s only true if you also don’t care what other people are required to do with your code. People who want copyleft enforced for their contributions will care if the license actually enforces it, and how.
> if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck
Sure, fine. My whole point in the last comment is that it’s complicated for the /creator/. Wasn’t talking about the user. A badly written license cuts both ways.
but it isn't complicated for me as creator. i just share the whole thing.
and the difficulty to enforce i already addressed in my first comment: if you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging. so i do accept that.
if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that.
also, consider that the AGPL is trying to be compatible to the GPL. that forces it to be more complicated. the OSL doesn't have that problem, and the OSL is also not compatible with the GPL, which is only ok if you don't want to integrate any other GPL software. although i suppose since the GPL doesn't require distribution on network access, this may not be an issue. but i don't know, i am not a lawyer. and so to be sure, i'll prefer the AGPL.