That article isn't right generally, by my understanding. It might be⁰ for their own use (a DB engine) but not for a library that might be more directly linked to an application.
AGPL is based on GPL, not LGPL, and like the GPL linking would be considered creating a derivative work which should then be made available as per the [A]GPL licence.
This won't stop me licensing my work using AGPL. If commercial interests don't want to use it then I'm fine with that¹. If they do want to use my stuff but don't want to use anything covered by AGPL then they can always contact me to try negotiate a different arrangement.
--------
[0] IANAL, hence “might be”. Whether loose coupling counts the same as linking is a grey area IIRC. This potential confusion is why some avoid GPL/AGPL, if only to be on the safe side from their PoV.
[1] Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way.²
[2] As the linked article says: “If you don’t use the AGPL[³], they’re just going to take your software and give nothing back. If you do use the AGPL, they’re just going to develop a solution in-house. There’s no outcome where Google pays you.”
[3] Here they are comparing AGPL to less restrictive licenses such as MIT.
Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way
This seems less fitting if it's true that what you're "giving" is some React bindings, and what they have to "give back" is their entire frontend application.
They don't have to give back if they don't use those bindings. They could use someone else's, or write their own.
They could also try negotiate an alternate arrangement, some authors may be willing to do that (assuming they have relevant permission from other contributors if it isn't a solo project, of course).
The example you give seems to be the unreasonable one IMO: “our thing is bigger, so we expect to use your smaller thing how we want”.
Comments
That article isn't right generally, by my understanding. It might be⁰ for their own use (a DB engine) but not for a library that might be more directly linked to an application.
AGPL is based on GPL, not LGPL, and like the GPL linking would be considered creating a derivative work which should then be made available as per the [A]GPL licence.
This won't stop me licensing my work using AGPL. If commercial interests don't want to use it then I'm fine with that¹. If they do want to use my stuff but don't want to use anything covered by AGPL then they can always contact me to try negotiate a different arrangement.
--------
[0] IANAL, hence “might be”. Whether loose coupling counts the same as linking is a grey area IIRC. This potential confusion is why some avoid GPL/AGPL, if only to be on the safe side from their PoV.
[1] Give the choice between “give us what we want with no come back and we'll use what we want and give nothing back” and “don't give us what we want, and we'll go away and leave you alone”, I'll take option two. I get nothing either way.²
[2] As the linked article says: “If you don’t use the AGPL[³], they’re just going to take your software and give nothing back. If you do use the AGPL, they’re just going to develop a solution in-house. There’s no outcome where Google pays you.”
[3] Here they are comparing AGPL to less restrictive licenses such as MIT.
This seems less fitting if it's true that what you're "giving" is some React bindings, and what they have to "give back" is their entire frontend application.
They don't have to give back if they don't use those bindings. They could use someone else's, or write their own.
They could also try negotiate an alternate arrangement, some authors may be willing to do that (assuming they have relevant permission from other contributors if it isn't a solo project, of course).
The example you give seems to be the unreasonable one IMO: “our thing is bigger, so we expect to use your smaller thing how we want”.