GNU Affero General Public License v3
Hacker ApprovedThe most recommended of 3 open source licenses
Copyleft license that extends source-sharing duties to software run as a network service and blocks tivoization; some with mixed feelings say it isn't a silver bullet for open source authors.
19 people recommended GNU Affero General Public License v3 in Hacker News comments, 2 had mixed feelings and none criticized it, November 2025 to October 2026.
Summary written by Claude from the comments below.
21 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 19
- mixed feelings
- 2
- warn against or regret it
- 0
The record
Recommended in 9 of 12 months
In 17 different threads.
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: recommended
- April 2026: recommended
- May 2026: not recommended
- June 2026: recommended
- July 2026: recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
Why it carries the badge
- 19 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, met.
- Nobody criticizes itNeeds 2 to 1 or better, met.
- Recommended in 9 of 12 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
- Recommended in 17 threadsNeeds 5 or more, met.
- The biggest thread supplies 16% of its recommendersNeeds half or less, met.
The same rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. Mixed feelings count toward neither side. How the badge works
What people say about it
Reasons grouped from a sample of 19 of the 22 opinions about it, picked in proportion to how many people recommend it, have mixed feelings and criticize it. Each mark is one comment in the sample. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Closes the network server loophole
“the AGPL is a fine choice as it legally coerces the copyleft even behind network based software”
Comment from 30 Nov 2025 in “Stopping bad guys from using my open source project (feedback wanted)” “For that case AGPL is better, because it avoids the server loophole.”
Comment from 28 Dec 2025 in “Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?” “I am happy with the network solution AGPL provides on top of GPL”
Comment from 21 Jun 2026 in “Burnout Is Real in the OSS World, Says John-David Dalton, Creator of Lodash” Requires sharing changes upstream
“Think AGPL, where you risk being forced to open source your entire unique-selling-point proprietary software stack.”
Comment from 13 Mar 2026 in “John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists” “you might want to consider GPL or AGPL as they might help some of the bad use cases you're trying to guard against”
Comment from 22 Feb 2026 in “Permacomputing” “AGPL would ensure that they can't just run with it; they have to contribute their changes upstream.”
Comment from 17 Dec 2025 in “O'saasy License Agreement” Clear, simple, unambiguous terms
“The license is actually quite simple if a little wordy.”
Comment from 6 Aug 2026 in “Herdr is joining Y Combinator. The runtime stays open” “This is a FREE license, which is not just open source.”
Comment from 1 Mar 2026 in “MinIO Is Dead, Long Live MinIO” “there is no ambiguity and you never have to wonder”
Comment from 2 Feb 2026 in “Mattermost say they will not clarify what license the project is under” Blocks tivoization and app-ification
“The anti-tivoization clause in Version 3 would allow users to modify and replace the rootkit with their own, more or less malicious version”
Comment from 18 Jan 2026 in “A free and open-source rootkit for Linux”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Not a silver bullet for open source
“AGPLv3 is not a silver bullet for people who write Open Source code”
Comment from 3 Mar 2026 in “I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project”
Other open source licenses people recommend
The two most recommended other open source licenses, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Mixed | Criticize | Approval | Months | Had for | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GNU Affero General Public License v3This page | 19 | 2 | 0 | 100% | 9 | — | Approved |
| MIT License | 7 | 2 | 5 | 58% | 5 | — | — |
| Mozilla Public License | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 4 | — | — |
What people said
19 of the 22 opinions about it, picked in proportion to the three counts, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“the default GPL should have had AGPL's clauses”
“The license is actually quite simple if a little wordy.”
“There's always the very good GNU Affero General Public License 3 (AGPL-3) and others.”
“AGPLv3 is the answer to that.”
“It might be to most pro commerce licence I know.”
“AGPL helps assure end users that their privacy is being respected.”
“you are explicitly allowed to charge for anything you like”
“I am happy with the network solution AGPL provides on top of GPL”
“The solution is to use AGPLv3.”
“Think AGPL, where you risk being forced to open source your entire unique-selling-point proprietary software stack.”
“AGPLv3 is not a silver bullet for people who write Open Source code”
“This is a FREE license, which is not just open source.”
“you might want to consider GPL or AGPL as they might help some of the bad use cases you're trying to guard against”
“there is no ambiguity and you never have to wonder”
“The anti-tivoization clause in Version 3 would allow users to modify and replace the rootkit with their own, more or less malicious version”
“For that case AGPL is better, because it avoids the server loophole.”
“AGPL would ensure that they can't just run with it; they have to contribute their changes upstream.”
“I haven't found better licenses yet than the AGPL and PPL”
“the AGPL is a fine choice as it legally coerces the copyleft even behind network based software”
Counts come from 1,791,911 Hacker News comments labeled by Claude, November 2025 to October 2026, with data through October 31, 2026. Counts updated 2 Nov 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.