3 ms·

> re: OSS licensing, we use GPL and have been very hesitant about using something like AGPL. I’ve personally seen developers not use projects only because they’

> re: OSS licensing, we use GPL and have been very hesitant about using something like AGPL. I’ve personally seen developers not use projects only because they’re AGPL. Even GPL seems to scare some developers. Do you think it is more likely to scare your potential paying customers, your potential contributors, or potential freeloaders? I expect that is likely to scare people in this order: 1. Freeloaders 2. Contributors 3. Customers If I have a Free Software project, I want to scare freeloaders while still welcoming potential customers and contributors. I know its a balancing act, but I like the AGPL.

jabo 6y ago
Unfortunately it seems to scare people in all those categories. People typically start using it for free and over time, some of them become contributors and/or paying customers. So if a license scares the people who start using it for free, it then inherently hurts contributions and customers long term.
TAForObvReasons 6y ago
The order is closer to 1. Contributors 2. Customers 3. Freeloaders The type of person who is likely to contribute will be the first to look at the license, and AGPL will rightfully worry them. For the open source funnel, the potential customers start off as "freeloaders". They are more likely to look at the license in the first place because they are more likely to be using the software in a commercial setting and have to worry about licensing. The AGPL concerns hit them first. The freeloaders will just switch over to a more liberally licensed project.
- teleclimber 6y ago
  > ...and AGPL will rightfully worry them. Not deeply familiar with AGPL. Why is it bad for contributors?
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    The idea that AGPL will "rightfully worry" potential contributors is FUD spread by Google to decrease uptake of the AGPL. AGPL rightfully worries potential freeloaders such as Amazon and Google that want to profit off of proprietary forks of Free Software packages without contributing back to the community.

jabo 6y ago

Unfortunately it seems to scare people in all those categories. People typically start using it for free and over time, some of them become contributors and/or paying customers. So if a license scares the people who start using it for free, it then inherently hurts contributions and customers long term.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago

The order is closer to 1. Contributors 2. Customers 3. Freeloaders The type of person who is likely to contribute will be the first to look at the license, and AGPL will rightfully worry them. For the open source funnel, the potential customers start off as "freeloaders". They are more likely to look at the license in the first place because they are more likely to be using the software in a commercial setting and have to worry about licensing. The AGPL concerns hit them first. The freeloaders will just switch over to a more liberally licensed project.

teleclimber 6y ago
> ...and AGPL will rightfully worry them. Not deeply familiar with AGPL. Why is it bad for contributors?
- blendergeek 6y ago
  The idea that AGPL will "rightfully worry" potential contributors is FUD spread by Google to decrease uptake of the AGPL. AGPL rightfully worries potential freeloaders such as Amazon and Google that want to profit off of proprietary forks of Free Software packages without contributing back to the community.