For a desktop application, would there be any reason not to use AGPL? Conversely, would there be any reason to use it over GPLv3+?
Wrong tool for the job. You can drive a nail with a shoe but maybe consider a hammer
@sir I thought AGPL was just GPL + SaaSS provision? Is it a bad thing to have that extra protection even if potentially not useful?
The one crazy scenario I can think of is if someone decides to compile your application into a webpage (say, with something like Emscripten) and provide _that_ as a service, but I doubt that's ever going to be something common
@sir @Matter heh, I misremembered. The FSF page explicitly said AGPL and GPL modules can be linked together. A GPL module is only a problem if the app using it is more permissively licensed since the combination will end up being GPL licensed.
As someone who used to maintain such a package for #Fedora, yeah, I switched to linking against libedit since I default to assuming the end-user wants to use the binary under the licensing term upstream chose, not something stronger.
@bjoern thank you for your response, I will probably go for GPLv3 after all.
(also, thank you for your work on Nextcloud , I use it every day!)
@Matter I mean, theoretically (at least), you may also use any desktop application code on servers… 🤷
Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.