I'd advise AGPL, especially for anything that is to be hosted, as it's an even stronger version providing protections against say Amazon or Microsoft going "yoink" and undermining any chance you...
I'd advise AGPL, especially for anything that is to be hosted, as it's an even stronger version providing protections against say Amazon or Microsoft going "yoink" and undermining any chance you have of monetizing hosting yourself.
Desktop apps can be accessed through a thin client on someone else's computer. The underlying business logic may also be relevant in a business context. IMO the question is "why not AGPL?"
OPs' project is a desktop app, so the AGPL would not add anything relevant.
Desktop apps can be accessed through a thin client on someone else's computer. The underlying business logic may also be relevant in a business context. IMO the question is "why not AGPL?"
Disclaimer: IANAL. If we have any IP lawyers here, I'd welcome their corrections. The AGPL doesn't necessarily prevent that. I think that's a common misconception because, in practice, SaaS...
Disclaimer: IANAL. If we have any IP lawyers here, I'd welcome their corrections.
The AGPL doesn't necessarily prevent that. I think that's a common misconception because, in practice, SaaS companies tend to avoid AGPL-licensed software like the plague. AGPL's surprisingly limited history in the courts make those companies' lawyers take an extremely cautious position on the ambiguities of (1) what constitutes "remote network interaction" and (2) to what extent do its copy-left terms apply to the other software behind their services?
To this layman, the plain meaning is a lot less cataclysmic than that. But I digress.
To guard against what you've described (another company offering your software as their service), you'd need something like the SSPL, which is itself based on the AGPL.
In fact, the only substantial difference between the Terms and Conditions of the GPLv3, AGPLv3, and SSPL is in each one's Section 13:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version.
“Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.
I'd advise AGPL, especially for anything that is to be hosted, as it's an even stronger version providing protections against say Amazon or Microsoft going "yoink" and undermining any chance you have of monetizing hosting yourself.
Desktop apps can be accessed through a thin client on someone else's computer. The underlying business logic may also be relevant in a business context. IMO the question is "why not AGPL?"
Disclaimer: IANAL. If we have any IP lawyers here, I'd welcome their corrections.
The AGPL doesn't necessarily prevent that. I think that's a common misconception because, in practice, SaaS companies tend to avoid AGPL-licensed software like the plague. AGPL's surprisingly limited history in the courts make those companies' lawyers take an extremely cautious position on the ambiguities of (1) what constitutes "remote network interaction" and (2) to what extent do its copy-left terms apply to the other software behind their services?
To this layman, the plain meaning is a lot less cataclysmic than that. But I digress.
To guard against what you've described (another company offering your software as their service), you'd need something like the SSPL, which is itself based on the AGPL.
In fact, the only substantial difference between the Terms and Conditions of the GPLv3, AGPLv3, and SSPL is in each one's Section 13:
GPLv3
source
Just clarifies how the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 interact.
AGPLv3
source
Server Side Public License (SSPL)
source
This isn't specific to Apache 2.0, right? Doesn't it apply to MIT and the other permissive licenses?