[trws]

A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.

[frant-hartm]

I remember that Neo4j Enterprise used to be available under AGPL. They pulled it and now it's available only under a commercial license.

AGPL is not a problem for server-side software if you don't need to modify it. Your application (talking to the server) doesn't become infected by AGPL.

[graemep]

> A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions

In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.

[worik]

> won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.

I feel out of touch

Why?>

[swiftcoder]

The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)