[nopreserveroot]

That's company policy and not the fault of the license. EDIT: Unless you're making modifications to the software, the AGPL does not apply.

EDIT2: http://www.affero.org/oagf.html#How_does_this_license_treat_...

Specifically, the question, "How does this license treat commercial enterprise use over intranets and internal networks?"

[xxpor]

>That's company policy

Yes.

I was just pointing out that regardless of modification/distribution/whatever, bigco policy is to not allow ANY AGPL code within a 10 mile radius of any computer owned by said company.

The author(s) are free to use AGPL, but there are significant downsides if they care about adoption.

[yarrel]

They care about the freedom of software users, not weird corporate policies.

Non-adoption by non-respecters of freedom isn't a downside.

[webmaven]

> bigco policy is to not allow ANY AGPL code within a 10 mile radius of any computer owned by said company."

Wait, that seems extremely paranoid, even if only meant figuratively... Can you explain the thinking on restricting the use of AGPL'd licensed applications?

[Anderkent]

It's a very common company policy, because it's 'never use GPL' is a much easier rule to follow than 'only use GPL when it doesnt expose the company to risk'. Programmers aren't lawyers.

[dekhn]

No, GPL is fine. AGPL is not.

[twic]

Is that true? My understanding of the AGPL was that any software product which uses it as a component becomes subject to the AGPL - it has the linking semantics of the GPL, not the LGPL. If that's not the case, please do disabuse me of my misconception!

[comex]

Yes, it is like the GPL. But in this case, where the product is a standalone application, that distinction shouldn't matter unless you're actually planning on bundling it into your own product somehow.

[kevin_thibedeau]

You can still make modifications so long as it isn't distributed outside the company.

[millstone]

The problem is that "outside of the company" can be murky. What if the company outsources? What if the company hires contractors? What if the company employs an intern - does the intern now have the right to distribute the software?

These are the legal landmines that BigCos want to avoid, mainly because they're questions that have not really been decided.

[dekhn]

I think your understanding of the AGPL (specfically) is in error.

[nopreserveroot]

See EDIT2 on my post.

[dekhn]

That only addresses part of the reason for the policy. Please, you have to be aware the legal world and companies is very complicated, and smart people spend a lot of time analyzing this.

[oblio]

While licenses are not simple, AGPL is specifically meant to "counter" closed source services based on AGPL code.

So unless you want to offer Alacritty-as-a-Service, you should be just fine with the license.