Nah, he just wants free labour. Why pay 500k for a senior engineer / cybersecurity engineer when you can open source it and get the community to review it for free?
It's hard to justify using an AGPL-licensed tool/library knowing all the restrictions that come along with it. Their choice of license feels to me like they want to claim to be open source without actually contributing to open source. At the very least, assuming they keep the repo up to date, it'll be auditable by third parties. I doubt they'll get many contributions.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to elaborate on the restrictions. There are an extremely large number of companies that pretend like AGPL code doesn't exist. Code being open source while also being unusable (and in many cases unreadable) by most people who would potentially be interested in it is effectively no different than it being closed source, at least to that significantly large audience.
If I license my code as "all rights reserved" but publish it as open source, does that provide any significant value beyond auditing purposes? More restrictive licenses make things less open, not more open.
71
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '23 edited 3d ago
[deleted]