GPLv3 to prevent commercial use without payment otherwise whatever.
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)
Opensource
1677 readers
26 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
AGPL is better to force companies. I used to be a "Whatever" MIT guy, but I'm fed up with leeches that don't participate or contribute, and now all my projects are in the "Fuck you" AGPL license.
I wasn't aware. Thanks!
I'm still a "whatever" MIT guy... or, more lately, 3-Clause BSD.
What changed your mind? Did you catch leaches, or suspect someone of leeching?
It’s a mix of AI, the realization that some companies are leeches, and that the purpose of the GPL is to give freedom back to the users. It became important to me for some reason.
I switched from "I don’t care if you use it" to "I don’t care if you can’t use it due to the license, because you abused the system and I’m fed up now."
Good reason.
I'm not sure if any of the GPLs are my ethic, but maybe I'd better review my default of grabbing the BSD license.
I want a license that forces moneymakers to have to pay. In absence thereof, AGPL and GPL FTW.
I chose FSL-MIT for my latest project that I plan to run as a service: https://fsl.software/
It's not technically OSS, but it is exactly what I want from a license. Users can do anything they want except make money off it themselves, but 2 years after release the software converts to MIT so you can make money off an old version of the software if you wanted. Basically I as the dev/maintainer get a 2 year lead on selling it as SaaS, and if you want to make money off of the latest versions we need to negotiate a different license agreement.
I think it's a good balance between being open source but also ensuring that development actually has a viable funding route.
Copyleft is super based.