4 ms·

"source-available" usually means you don't want contributions and forks, is that the case? Are you getting anything by making the source available? Maybe you s

"source-available" usually means you don't want contributions and forks, is that the case? Are you getting anything by making the source available? Maybe you should make it proprietary. There are some licenses like the LGPL which will forbid some companies to bundling your software in some ways. This license is forbidden at Google, as an example. Which brings me to the topic of open source licenses and corporations. If you're hoping some big company will use and sponsor your project, they usually have strict license requirements (anything "custom" or outside the OSI-approved list will need extra approvals internally).

michaelpjones 4y ago
Good questions. I don't mind contributions if they don't mind the model being used. I guess I would be looking to prevent profit making forks of the code base. I guess I like the idea of open source projects still being able to use it for free and possibly non-profits (though that might complicate things) so I don't mind those users having a near-open-source experience and source availability seems to be close to that. Perhaps I should have more faith in the area and try to productise it but I guess I don't have the confidence in that. Though I guess that raises questions about the whole venture. Still, I think the kind of "this is available, just not to million dollar companies" isn't a crazy middle ground to aim for. I don't think that LGPL would be a good fit for preventing use inside companies though I guess technically it might work. Though the companies are shipping the generated docs and not the project code specifically so I'm not sure that LGPL would be the way forward. Thank you for taking the time to respond.