Doesn’t really work that way, I don’t think… if you’re specifically using agpl, then you don’t want people relicensing it as gpl (in particular because that could include Microsoft selling access to a “gpl” version of the project behind an api endpoint or something, and never distributing their source modifications since the gpl doesn’t require them to.) I think the gpl-compatible license you’re looking for is the gpl.
GPL means you can have the software+source for free and make changes to it. But, if you sell or redistribute it (which you can also do), you have to give people the source code with any improvements you made to it also.
AGPL is the same, but you also have to give people the source if they’re accessing it behind a web service or something (i.e. making use of it without technically “receiving” the underlying software).
Yeah, no particular reason. Either it was already licensed GPL3 with multiple authors and not enough reason to “upgrade” to justify the difficulty that entails of consulting with everyone, or it’s a type of software where there’s basically no difference, or they’re just not aware of it.
Doesn’t really work that way, I don’t think… if you’re specifically using agpl, then you don’t want people relicensing it as gpl (in particular because that could include Microsoft selling access to a “gpl” version of the project behind an api endpoint or something, and never distributing their source modifications since the gpl doesn’t require them to.) I think the gpl-compatible license you’re looking for is the gpl.
What’s the difference between gpl and agpl?
So aGPL is basically just better gpl.
Why do people mainly use GPL then? Just don’t know it exists?
Yeah, no particular reason. Either it was already licensed GPL3 with multiple authors and not enough reason to “upgrade” to justify the difficulty that entails of consulting with everyone, or it’s a type of software where there’s basically no difference, or they’re just not aware of it.
Thanks.