Yes I have. Any company I've been involved with, met that look at and use, contribute to open source at all (SW as well as HW) avoid AGPL. Many ban employees from downloading, clone something known to be AGPL licensed.
Releasing under AGPL is a great way to not see your design being used and contributed to. At least by entities that wants to abide by the license and do the right thing. Entities that steal work done by others, have no intention to contribute back may do differently.
That's like saying the reason why GNU/Linux was completely lost and every single x86 servers and smartphones for last few decades ran on FreeBSD is because of the MIT license it uses. That would be a complete parallel world imagination.
IMO it's normal and expected that companies hate GPL(v2 or v3 or AGPL). It's not okay but also okay to steal GPL code too, it's just an introductory price phase for inescapable lock-in which even Google hasn't been able to get away from.
JoachimS|3 years ago
Releasing under AGPL is a great way to not see your design being used and contributed to. At least by entities that wants to abide by the license and do the right thing. Entities that steal work done by others, have no intention to contribute back may do differently.
RobotToaster|3 years ago
numpad0|3 years ago
IMO it's normal and expected that companies hate GPL(v2 or v3 or AGPL). It's not okay but also okay to steal GPL code too, it's just an introductory price phase for inescapable lock-in which even Google hasn't been able to get away from.
RobotToaster|3 years ago
CERN-OHL-S seems more common in open hardware.
In general FOSH licenses aren't as developed or tested as FOSS ones.