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

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.