> Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing?
They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise left to the reader. I genuinely don't know, I'd have to stare at definitions for a bit to form an opinion.)
> Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project.
Er, I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to use it in a private work? AFAIK the viral parts of AGPL/GPL only say you have to share source with users of the software; if your only user is you then it's immaterial.
> Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?
Worse/better is somewhat subjective, but AGPL is a (Free and) Open Source license. It was open source (BSD), then it wasn't (SSPL), then it was open source (AGPL).
They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise left to the reader. I genuinely don't know, I'd have to stare at definitions for a bit to form an opinion.)
> Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project.
Er, I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to use it in a private work? AFAIK the viral parts of AGPL/GPL only say you have to share source with users of the software; if your only user is you then it's immaterial.
> Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?
Worse/better is somewhat subjective, but AGPL is a (Free and) Open Source license. It was open source (BSD), then it wasn't (SSPL), then it was open source (AGPL).