I could be wrong, but I thought the main reason for the license change was due to predatory practices of large organizations like amazon or gcp taking open source tech, privatizing it and leveraging cloud advantages at a high price point. Its a hard road to keep open source open while predatory orgs can make a profit providing the same product just at scale. Again, just my own interpretation and always up to learn more about things.
Jesus. Even Redis falling prey to enshittification.
This is why we should prefer copyleft-licensed software. It's a Ulysses pact with users.
I‘m not privy to the intricacies of licensing yet, only getting there. But something that keeps devs from taking their work and those of others and making it closed source or whatever suits their needs would be great.
AGPL is a "do not touch" license to commercial interests in that it forces anything using AGPL code to be open source, and does wonders for weeding out the truly bad actors. From my understanding, AGPL code cannot be relicensed, making the license ideal for telling greedy devs (and management) who only see money without contributing back to get fucked.
Some projects offer dual licenses to those that don't want to abide by the AGPL, and accept payment in return to fund development.
Personally, due to the shenanigans in the past few years, almost all of my own projects since 2020 (with a few exceptions) are AGPL from the initial commit.
Thats pretty awesome. I read about the agpl and I use it in a project of mine newly.
Do you have any resources to read up about the thought process behind licensing? Because I see two arguments here:
There sure are a lot more ideas to this.
For resources on licenses, off the top of my head there are:
Both sites have breakdowns of each license for the layperson. As always, the GNU Licenses page has others.
In response to your arguments:
The choice is mainly about how much effort you're willing to pour into supporting the project alone if others take interest in it, how much you want others to be willing to pour into supporting your project via contributions or financials, and how you would feel if a more successful fork of your project becomes more restrictive after a license change or organisation restructuring (looking at you, Gitea and RedHat).
My personal choice in license is simple. Most of my software is for me and works on my machines. I also don't want commercial entities providing my software as a service without contributing code back, so AGPL is an easy choice. I do have a disclaimer on my public facing git forge that none of my AGPL licensed projects support dual licensing because I value code contributions more than money, especially if they come from the enterprise sector.
Thats awesome! Thank you so much for taking the time to write this out. I have a good understanding of your pov now and I like it.
Would you mind connecting on dm or matrix if one ever wanted to help? I‘m currently working on a couple projects which require me to step up my game quite a lot. I‘d be interested in your opinion.
Have a good one.
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
