I stated facts, debunked myths about AGPL and in the end everyone agreed that there are zero risks in using a desktop app like Logseq, while the risks are all about using Logseq source code to provide a service.
Agenda? As a user it doesn’t make any difference to me if Logseq is released as AGPL or MIT. The AGPL is meant to protect the team’s work. I am arguing in the sole interest of the team. Just the fact that one could think I have an agenda means this whole thing about licensing is not clear at all, sigh.
It doesn’t matter because it doesn’t apply to using a desktop app like Logseq as opposed to using Logseq source code. As already said many times, a company can simply forbid downloading AGPL source code but not binaries.
I am the one that suggested the dual-licensing as a solution but some people, instead of appreciating that, started a controversy that lead to nothing, since they have no alternative solutions and their arguments turned out to be myths or don’t apply to a desktop app like Logseq.
The Logseq team can relicense thanks to the CLA that every contributor must sign before their contributions are accepted. The request by Logseq team to sign the CLA is what triggered this discussion. That and the reason the Logseq team wrote made me thought that it’s not clear to them how the AGPL works and how they would shoot themselves in the foot by adopting another license. You can read more in my original post.
There are famous leaked documents by Microsoft about this and I don’t understand why it’s so surprising, most IT companies takes advantage of artificial scarcity and FOSS could make more people realize that you can have good enough products without a business based on artificial scarcity.
I have not to make it clear because it’s already clear if you read my original post. Another user already tried this strategy, sorry but it doesn’t work against me. Use your energy for real arguments.