Might be worth reading this and the original github issue. It isn't actually agpl. They only grant access to the source code to build a compiled version which isn't freedom. And beyond that, some code is covered under a source available enterprise license which i think is where they would enforce their paywall
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 123
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 123
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
I feel like you didn't read the post or issue i linked, nor their license.txt and are instead just trying to talk past me.
I don't really care about this project or debating their intentionally ambiguous license structure. My point was that the grant of rights explicitly only grants AGPL access to create compiled versions of mattermost. That is not how FOSS licenses work and is incompatible with FOSS licenses because it lacks the "freedom" that even AGPL would typically grant.
I'm not saying that people can't dual license or that they can't release their product in other non-free ways. That's not the issue here. The issue is that you are saying it's AGPL, and it's not--Not really. It's only AGPL to create a compiled version of mattermost.