* The article is right that Google IS spreading FUD. They're making legal statements which are probably false to minimize usage of the AGPL outside of Google.
* Google came to a sensible conclusion, that THEY shouldn't use the AGPL
* Google's articulated reasons don't hold legal water, and following Google's lead and interpretation causes many companies to mislicense their code
It's a right tool for the right job kind of thing, and AGPL is not the right tool for Google's job.
I've used all sorts of license in projects I've worked on. It's always a pragmatic evaluation. Right now, I'm working on a project which, pending legal review, should be AGPL. Any other license would be business suicide. AGPL gets us the ecosystem we'll need, without having to unfairly compete with our own code.
* The article is right that Google IS spreading FUD. They're making legal statements which are probably false to minimize usage of the AGPL outside of Google.
* Google came to a sensible conclusion, that THEY shouldn't use the AGPL
* Google's articulated reasons don't hold legal water, and following Google's lead and interpretation causes many companies to mislicense their code
It's a right tool for the right job kind of thing, and AGPL is not the right tool for Google's job.
I've used all sorts of license in projects I've worked on. It's always a pragmatic evaluation. Right now, I'm working on a project which, pending legal review, should be AGPL. Any other license would be business suicide. AGPL gets us the ecosystem we'll need, without having to unfairly compete with our own code.