No, it means if you run Lemmy as a service and make modifications to it, you have to release your modifications back with the same license. Otherwise you couldn't use a browser that's not AGPL and read pages running on top of an AGPL server.

What AGPL is really good at is how nobody can take Lemmy, run a proprietary service and add incompatible features without giving them back to the community. So nobody can fork Lemmy, create a new VC-backed Reddit clone and start making incompatible changes to the source without the main project getting the source code.

[–] teri@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it's still possible to rewrite a VC-backed clone and start making incompatible changes. Think about Facebook's "threads.net". They sure did not take Lemmy source code.

[–] pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just have to be very careful to not have your developers to get even close to the AGPL source code, because if it's similar, there's a possibility the judge says you copied the AGPL code and now your license is AGPL too. There's a reason companies are really scared about everything related to the license...

But yes, this happens and you have to have resources to fight it. Which is not easy.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Sadly, the more realistic option is that the judge dismisses the complaint because they don't understand open source.

Happens sadly quite often.

Or it never encounters a judge because the author of the open source project doesn't have the money to fight a megacorp in a court.

load more comments (1 replies)