4 ms·

I was faced with the GPL vs AGPL dilemma when I started working on Typesense (https://github.com/typesense/typesense https://github.com/typesense/typesense): I

I was faced with the GPL vs AGPL dilemma when I started working on Typesense (https://github.com/typesense/typesense https://github.com/typesense/typesense): I wanted to protect future potential commercial interests without stifling the spirit of open source collaboration and development. I asked around for advice and eventually just chose GPL over AGPL because a lot of legal teams seemed allergic to AGPL and some companies even had a blanket ban on it. I also thought that the greatest risk for my project was not an existing or future competitor: it was death by obscurity. To that end, I did not want to slow down adoption by choosing a license that screamed "$$$" or made somebody's legal team uncomfortable. In any case, if a big company wants to copy you, they will and can with the resources they can throw at it. On the other hand, there are popular projects that do use AGPL (MongoDB) so it might not be that big of a deal in the real world :)

enriquto 6y ago
> I asked around for advice and eventually just chose GPL over AGPL because a lot of legal teams seemed allergic to AGPL and some companies even had a blanket ban on it. So, in other words, you succumbed to F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
- thecureforzits 6y ago
  One look at the comments in a typical HN thread about FOSS shows how good a job the big players (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) have done turning what was a threat into an asset. We literally now have people proclaiming how great it is to be able to work without being paid as if it were a badge of honor.
- oefrha 6y ago
  No, they succumbed to the certainty that companies in general are allergic to AGPL, which might be a result of FUD, but the FUD wasn’t what they succumbed to.
pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
This is something to consider, although even the GPL has its detractors (people "allergic" to it). Personally, I'm a fan of GPL and copyleft, and I don't like that it's so maligned and misrepresented. A lot of the foment about hardships and "unsustainable open source" are attributable to the cultural meme that MIT is the only acceptable choice, which leads to people acting against their own best interests. It feels like a very /r/LeopardsAteMyFace situation. On the other hand, memes being what they are, even as a fan of copyleft, I have to acknowledge that perception does matter, as you mention. So in the choice between GPL and AGPL, the truth, which you really have to deal with, is that you are going to be turning people away by choosing the latter—and not just in the sense that it turns away the people that it's supposed to. If you want to go with AGPL but are concerned about the dampening effect on your prospects and never being able to get off the ground because of it, then maybe go for GPL, and as soon as your project has reached critical mass, has momentum, etc, then take the opportunity to reconsider and go from GPL->AGPL. Like, as soon as possible; when there's any momentum at all. It's also why you might consider MPL2. It's compatible with the GPL and LGPL by default, and it has an MIT (or Apache) feel, but it's essentially GPL at the file scope. And since it isn't branded with the letters "GPL", you can avoid the reflexive "nope" from potential contributors and clients. The main thing, though, is that relicensing can be easy. Hell, you can even start off under MIT until you reach n > 1, migrate to MPL2, using it as a stepping stone to GPL, and then go full-fledged AGPL, with no CLAs or big relicensing effort required at any step of the process.
hitekker 6y ago
> because a lot of legal teams seemed allergic to AGPL and some companies even had a blanket ban on it. This is true for my company. Our engineers are allowed to use OSS licensed with LGPL, MPL, GPL and other copyleft licenses. But OSS with AGPL is expressly forbidden. Thank you for releasing typesense under GPL. I was able to try out your software without fear of losing my job.

enriquto 6y ago

> I asked around for advice and eventually just chose GPL over AGPL because a lot of legal teams seemed allergic to AGPL and some companies even had a blanket ban on it. So, in other words, you succumbed to F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

thecureforzits 6y ago
One look at the comments in a typical HN thread about FOSS shows how good a job the big players (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) have done turning what was a threat into an asset. We literally now have people proclaiming how great it is to be able to work without being paid as if it were a badge of honor.
oefrha 6y ago
No, they succumbed to the certainty that companies in general are allergic to AGPL, which might be a result of FUD, but the FUD wasn’t what they succumbed to.

pwdisswordfish4 6y ago

This is something to consider, although even the GPL has its detractors (people "allergic" to it). Personally, I'm a fan of GPL and copyleft, and I don't like that it's so maligned and misrepresented. A lot of the foment about hardships and "unsustainable open source" are attributable to the cultural meme that MIT is the only acceptable choice, which leads to people acting against their own best interests. It feels like a very /r/LeopardsAteMyFace situation. On the other hand, memes being what they are, even as a fan of copyleft, I have to acknowledge that perception does matter, as you mention. So in the choice between GPL and AGPL, the truth, which you really have to deal with, is that you are going to be turning people away by choosing the latter—and not just in the sense that it turns away the people that it's supposed to. If you want to go with AGPL but are concerned about the dampening effect on your prospects and never being able to get off the ground because of it, then maybe go for GPL, and as soon as your project has reached critical mass, has momentum, etc, then take the opportunity to reconsider and go from GPL->AGPL. Like, as soon as possible; when there's any momentum at all. It's also why you might consider MPL2. It's compatible with the GPL and LGPL by default, and it has an MIT (or Apache) feel, but it's essentially GPL at the file scope. And since it isn't branded with the letters "GPL", you can avoid the reflexive "nope" from potential contributors and clients. The main thing, though, is that relicensing can be easy. Hell, you can even start off under MIT until you reach n > 1, migrate to MPL2, using it as a stepping stone to GPL, and then go full-fledged AGPL, with no CLAs or big relicensing effort required at any step of the process.

hitekker 6y ago

> because a lot of legal teams seemed allergic to AGPL and some companies even had a blanket ban on it. This is true for my company. Our engineers are allowed to use OSS licensed with LGPL, MPL, GPL and other copyleft licenses. But OSS with AGPL is expressly forbidden. Thank you for releasing typesense under GPL. I was able to try out your software without fear of losing my job.