4 ms·

Re-license as AGPL, charge for an exemption

by perrohunter 5y ago

grp000 5y ago
Are you allowed to retro-actively change your license to something more restrictive?
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Isn't going forward sufficient?
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    If the code is already fairly mature then the big companies using it can just fork it (and make their new fork entirely closed if they feel like it) and the creator of the original code won't be able to do a thing about it.
- riquito 5y ago
  You can change your license, but it's not retroactive, the code released so far keeps the old license (and can be forked from there). Note that it would be unsustainable otherwise, e.g. release as free, force people to pay later
sangnoir 5y ago
If they use AGPL, how would they get companies to actually use the software before extorti^w shaming them into paying some money for a product they are licensed to use for free? Developers: think long and hard about the license that's right for your project before you push out to the world. I can't help but feel that free/open source software has become a lot less altruistic in the era of Github. We gained quantity and quality, but lost something else that's difficult to express: innocence? Not every project needs to be a job/startup/foundation (cue Left-Pad LLC). I daresay, not all projects ought to be monetized, period.
- sand_castles 5y ago
  You do know what in 2021, you have to pay for water even water ? Unless you are super rich, you can't afford to do open source.
- perrohunter 5y ago
  no need to shame everyone, of course if the license is AGPL you won't be asking small users to get a license right away, but it gives you leverage with large companies to justify them doing business with you. I don't think a large company would want a core component to die just because it's no longer mantained, nor they want to dedicate the resources to mantain a fork.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    I was being snarky - MIT-/BSD-style licenses are licenses and they grant companies license to use your software, without having to "do business" with author (but companies can be publicly pressured to do so (see the fine article), once they start using said software). The snark is rooted on the fact that large companies avoid AGPL software like a leper - they won't even install it, let alone do business with the author. So anyone hoping to do a long-con is better off avoiding AGPL.

Re-license as AGPL, charge for an exemption

grp000 5y ago

Are you allowed to retro-actively change your license to something more restrictive?

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Isn't going forward sufficient?
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  If the code is already fairly mature then the big companies using it can just fork it (and make their new fork entirely closed if they feel like it) and the creator of the original code won't be able to do a thing about it.
riquito 5y ago
You can change your license, but it's not retroactive, the code released so far keeps the old license (and can be forked from there). Note that it would be unsustainable otherwise, e.g. release as free, force people to pay later

sangnoir 5y ago

If they use AGPL, how would they get companies to actually use the software before extorti^w shaming them into paying some money for a product they are licensed to use for free? Developers: think long and hard about the license that's right for your project before you push out to the world. I can't help but feel that free/open source software has become a lot less altruistic in the era of Github. We gained quantity and quality, but lost something else that's difficult to express: innocence? Not every project needs to be a job/startup/foundation (cue Left-Pad LLC). I daresay, not all projects ought to be monetized, period.

sand_castles 5y ago
You do know what in 2021, you have to pay for water even water ? Unless you are super rich, you can't afford to do open source.
perrohunter 5y ago
no need to shame everyone, of course if the license is AGPL you won't be asking small users to get a license right away, but it gives you leverage with large companies to justify them doing business with you. I don't think a large company would want a core component to die just because it's no longer mantained, nor they want to dedicate the resources to mantain a fork.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  I was being snarky - MIT-/BSD-style licenses are licenses and they grant companies license to use your software, without having to "do business" with author (but companies can be publicly pressured to do so (see the fine article), once they start using said software). The snark is rooted on the fact that large companies avoid AGPL software like a leper - they won't even install it, let alone do business with the author. So anyone hoping to do a long-con is better off avoiding AGPL.