this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
59 points (98.4% liked)
Open Source
47850 readers
559 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Section 10 of the AGPL covers these shenanigans.
It's argued that these additional clauses restrict who can create a fork of the code and thereby activates section 10.
This. They wanted to libre-wash their software. But by using the AGPL, they have essentially sabotaged themselves successfully, to our benefit.
It was the other way around. They added the clauses after they used AGPL. So they commercial washed their libre software.
I meant originally. They never wanted to be truly committed to FOSS. The binary blobs everywhere tell the whole story.