AGPL means you have to share any code you write using this framework. It makes no sense to me why a library would be AGPL licensed, LGPL is what I expect libraries to be, of course I'm not sure how the LGPL applies to Python, but I'm usually all in for MIT License.
I have always disliked the “GPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use” argument. You know well why it isn’t practical to use for commercial purposes. You basically make any project using it into an unlimited full featured free trial.
> I have always disliked the “GPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use” argument. You know well why it isn’t practical to use for commercial purposes. You basically make any project using it into an unlimited full featured free trial.
I don't get it. What would be so wrong about making your source code available to everyone (including your competitors)? Remember, if your source code is AGPL and someone uses it, their source code is also AGPL and they must make their changes available to their users.
If you deliver real value to your customers, the fact that your source code is publicly available should be a plus point for your customers.
I don’t know about google or Facebook but I imagine I could argue the secret sauce is configuration which (I anal) I imagine is not something you’d have to release under any GPL. The threat isn’t so much that someone will build a competing google as much as I think it is someone will game our system. Just my guess.
There's plenty of open source projects that don't force the sharing of code and are still successful. I work for a company that works with open source projects and we do from time to time contribute fixes back to projects we depend on, it's not liable to maintain a fork that you have to maintain back ports for, especially as the main project gets reworked.
Apparently it should be the case.