<story><title>Re-License Vaultwarden to AGPLv3</title><url>https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/pull/2561</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>YPPH</author><text>The AGPL is an underrated licence. It solves the problem of $bigCorp taking free software, making significant improvements and then renting network access to that improved version without providing their changes to anyone. That&amp;#x27;s unfair.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>simiones</author><text>This has generally turned out to be a problem very few people have.&lt;p&gt;In practice, $bigCorp is happy to publicize all of the changes they make to this software.&lt;p&gt;They can then focus on out-competing anyone by offering a cheaper and&amp;#x2F;or better integrated managed version then the original creators can. This is explicitly why Mongo moved from the AGPL to a custom non-FOSS license; Elastic followed suite and skipped the AGPL altogether for a similar license.&lt;p&gt;Overall, $bigCorp love having any changes they make in upstream: less maintenance burden on them for the parts that are not in their direct business, more time spent on working on their value-adds.</text></comment>
<story><title>Re-License Vaultwarden to AGPLv3</title><url>https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/pull/2561</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>YPPH</author><text>The AGPL is an underrated licence. It solves the problem of $bigCorp taking free software, making significant improvements and then renting network access to that improved version without providing their changes to anyone. That&amp;#x27;s unfair.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Macha</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d argue that the GPLv3 is even obsolete. If you don&amp;#x27;t care about third parties using it in proprietary software, use LGPLv3 or Apache 2.0. If you do care, then a license that fails to apply that restriction to the dominant form of software today seems pretty underwhelming and you should go straight to AGPLv3 instead.</text></comment>