What are the implications of Andreessen Horowitz's interest in the evil license for the cryptocurrency community?

3 answers

• Dec 25, 2021 · 3 years ago
  From a professional standpoint, Andreessen Horowitz's interest in the evil license could have significant implications for the cryptocurrency community. The evil license, also known as the Affero General Public License (AGPL), is a copyleft license that requires any modifications or derivative works to be released under the same license. This means that any projects or platforms built on top of AGPL-licensed software would also have to be open source. If Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm, adopts this license for their cryptocurrency-related investments, it could lead to increased transparency and collaboration within the community. However, it may also deter some businesses and developers who prefer to keep their code proprietary. Overall, the implications of this move would depend on how widely it is adopted and whether it becomes a standard in the industry.
  891446
• Dec 25, 2021 · 3 years ago
  Well, let me break it down for you. Andreessen Horowitz's interest in the evil license, also known as AGPL, could shake things up in the cryptocurrency community. This license requires any modifications or derivative works to be released under the same license, making it a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, it promotes openness and collaboration, which could lead to more innovation and better products. On the other hand, it might discourage businesses and developers who want to keep their code under wraps. It's like a love-hate relationship, you know? So, the implications really depend on how many people jump on the evil license bandwagon and how it affects the overall dynamics of the community.
  711237
• Dec 25, 2021 · 3 years ago
  As a third-party observer, I can say that Andreessen Horowitz's interest in the evil license, also known as AGPL, could have some interesting implications for the cryptocurrency community. This license, which requires any modifications or derivative works to be released under the same license, could potentially foster a more open and collaborative environment. It might encourage developers to share their code and build upon each other's work, leading to faster innovation and improved security. However, it could also deter some businesses and developers who prefer to keep their code proprietary. It's a trade-off between openness and control. Only time will tell how this plays out and whether it becomes a widely adopted practice in the industry.
  753189