I don´t get why AGPL or GPLv3 could make them not allow to download software. Or I don't fully understood the license (i think the last is more feasible hahaha)
It totally makes sense for something like dev.to to use AGPL but might prevent adoption for libraries that could be hidden away behind the scenes.
I think, in that cases, that one could just talk to the developer and try luck. If they deny you the open-sourcing, you could use an alternative. There are always many!
The problem is the AGPL and GPL3 force you to make your code available to anyone that consumes that service, whether that's a website or and API. This applies even if you're just using a library this license.
To mitigate this this risk, it's easier for companies to just not use AGPL or GPL3 open source products at all.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don´t get why AGPL or GPLv3 could make them not allow to download software. Or I don't fully understood the license (i think the last is more feasible hahaha)
I think, in that cases, that one could just talk to the developer and try luck. If they deny you the open-sourcing, you could use an alternative. There are always many!
Thanks for your reply!
The problem is the AGPL and GPL3 force you to make your code available to anyone that consumes that service, whether that's a website or and API. This applies even if you're just using a library this license.
To mitigate this this risk, it's easier for companies to just not use AGPL or GPL3 open source products at all.