There are multiple problems here. First, there's the unsupported claim that the AGPL is somehow incompatible with being production-ready, which seems obviously false. But more seriously, there's the proposition that GitHub should crack down on this project, which I find to be absolutely bizarre.
The person who opened that issue also made some other claims, like that a more permissive license would allow the project to reach a broader audience. That's undoubtedly true, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the author of the project is probably well aware of that and chose an appropriate license based on their own goals.
thesuperbigfrog · 3h ago
The license for the project template is clearly indicated.
If you do not agree to the license terms, do not use the project template.
Or, you could contact the project template author and ask if they are willing to sell a commercially-licensed copy to you.
alextingle · 4h ago
Oh no! Free software!!
I suppose it's good that these people actually bother to read the license and intend to respect it.
aleatorianator · 4h ago
ban forcefully free software now before we all turn communist!
yikes
johnbellone · 4h ago
Honestly, for this functionality (generating a new desktop project) how can you not at least warn them?
johnbellone · 4h ago
It is dangerous to allow project templates to have a copyleft license. Any project that uses it could be argued as a derivative work. For this behavior in your application it should be explicitly disallowed or at minimum a red dialog.
josephcsible · 4h ago
How is that dangerous? Isn't it a good thing, because it stops rug pulls?
johnbellone · 3h ago
It’s about the workflow for project templates. If there were a warning when creating or cloning that is one thing. But a folder structure, config files for tools, potentially requires the whole project to be a derivative?
evanjrowley · 2h ago
It is dangerous to allow project templates to have a copyright license. Any project that uses it will be a derivative work. For this behavior in your application it should be explicitly disallowed or at minimum a red dialog.
The person who opened that issue also made some other claims, like that a more permissive license would allow the project to reach a broader audience. That's undoubtedly true, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the author of the project is probably well aware of that and chose an appropriate license based on their own goals.
If you do not agree to the license terms, do not use the project template.
Or, you could contact the project template author and ask if they are willing to sell a commercially-licensed copy to you.
I suppose it's good that these people actually bother to read the license and intend to respect it.
yikes