3 ms·
I originally set out to do L0 with a noncommercial license only. Then I had half a dozen good conversations with copyleft friends, who pointed out that (1) they
by kemitchell 9y ago
I originally set out to do L0 with a noncommercial license only. Then I had half a dozen good conversations with copyleft friends, who pointed out that (1) they really liked what I was doing, (2) they'd never use anything but a copyleft license, (3) even the (A)GPLs were compromise implementations of the values they really hold dear.
Open Source licenses can't discriminate against groups or fields of endeavor. But groups discriminate against Open Source all the time. A strong copyleft license could be both Open Source and nearly as effective as a noncommercial license in driving financial support to OSS maintainers. Under L0-R, companies can choose: Either they make their work available as Open Source, or they support others who do.
- eeZah7Ux 9y agoI like the direction where this is going. Giving adopters the option to choose between strong copyleft (e.g. AGPL) or paying. Everybody wins, except freeloaders. What license would you provide the paid copy with? It should allow modification, linking, redistribution but only for the paying customer.
- kemitchell 9y agohttps://licensezero.com/licenses/private https://licensezero.com/licenses/private They're based on Apache-2.0: https://licensezero.com/licenses/private/diff https://licensezero.com/licenses/private/diff