I'm not a lawyer but the first reaction to this was if it is enforceable at all? There is a [rich choice] (https://tldrlegal.com/ https://tldrlegal.com/) of lic

I'm not a lawyer but the first reaction to this was if it is enforceable at all? There is a [rich choice] (https://tldrlegal.com/ https://tldrlegal.com/) of licenses backed by court history and many years of practical usage. For my OSS project I spent some time to pick a right license and changed it couple of times (LGPL -> GPL -> MPL 2.0). My final choice was mainly due to the blog post by author of ZeroMQ Peter Hintjens ["How to Make Money from Open Source"] (http://hintjens.com/blog:27 http://hintjens.com/blog:27) , where he described a story of "Patrick" who "told big companies that they could" rip him off and they did - in the spirit of the top comment here. I have faced a troll on GitHub who opened an issue on almost every project related to data analytics and asked authors to change any reciprocal license to MIT/BSD/Apache. I've never seen him contributing anything substantial back. This was a refreshing reminder that as soon as I publish my code as MIT et al. all valuable parts from it will be ripped apart immediately and I'll unlikely see any contributions back. Yet I wanted to share my code and see contributions back. In the [issue thread](https://github.com/Spreads/Spreads/issues/6 https://github.com/Spreads/Spreads/issues/6) Peter Hintjens joined and commented that "MPLv2 gives us [ZeromMQ] the same benefits with less angst for corporate users" vs (L/A)GPL. Many licenses are carefully crafted by lawyers and any change to it makes software not an open source anymore. It feels to me that OSS with a proper license is very close to a legal entity a la trust, and maintainers are just trustees. So if I want to remain any control I would rather choose uncool APGL.