AGPL is great for letting regular people host stuff without large companies taking over your project and giving it to their 100000000000000000 centralized user base.
Yes indeed. The implication from the other poster was that companies can't exploit the project and make derivatives without sharing their source code. That doesn't stop them, but it does make it possible for people to get the updates, self-host or create competing instances, which is a major check on the power that proprietary services have.
My comment refers to the notion that users of MediaGoblin can store treasured private content without it being indexed and monetized by large providers.
This is true regardless of which open source license is used, and I am a strong supporter of permissive licensing over copyleft. ;) I see nothing wrong with corporations building their proprietary platforms on top of open source software as long as I'm not required to use it.
Interesting that nathcd's comment (on this comment thread specifially) is 'dead'. Basically he explains politely and using analogy why AGPL seems just fine and then points out there seems to be a trend of anti-copyleft on HN lately. Subsequently his comment is now 'dead'... point proven?
Bear in mind, HN, beyond just being "tech news" is very connected to the startup culture by the very nature of being YC's. So there's a heck of a lot of business people around here, and businesses want to avoid licenses that lead to additional legal responsibility. It's particularly a liability if you're hoping another company will buy yours and integrate your software with theirs.
Sometimes as an open source and privacy advocate, I feel like I'm in the minority here, along with a couple of other voices I see along the same lines as me. Though, I am pretty anti-copyleft as well. Go figure.
