Why we’re changing to the AGPL license
As someone who's been trying to figure out a good open source license for my software, I've had to remove AGPL from consideration. This is because I want companies to be able to use the software for their internal use but not be able to create a user-facing product out of it.<p>For AGPL, anything it links to must also be AGPL licensed. If a company such as Microsoft wants to use my project internally, they'd be taking on a huge liability. Does this mean any project that depends on my project needs to also be APGL licened?<p>Further, the terms on APGL are somewhat vague in a good-hearted attempt to prevent exploitation. What counts as 'use over a computer network'? If Microsoft developers use network disks to access my software are they screwed?<p>For now I'm (somewhat unhappily) considering MIT the only option.