3 ms·
Ok, foo.sh then. He needs to fix it - if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
by rgj 3y ago
Ok, foo.sh then.
He needs to fix it - if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- keepamovin 3y agoThanks, we will fix if wrong. Tho... It may be too late! Other products in this: Qt - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html, Isotope - https://github.com/metafizzy/isotope#license https://github.com/metafizzy/isotope#license What do you suggest?
- josephcsible 3y agoMy suggestion would be to license it under the AGPLv3+ for everyone, and then continue to sell commercial licenses to anyone who wants an alternative to the AGPL. Most corporations will refuse to use that license even though they're allowed to (e.g., https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...) and it's 100% FOSS.
- keepamovin 3y agoI think the confusion over the licensing definitely indicates there is an opportunity for us to communicate better about this. In terms of there being an actual better solution, though? I don't know. We're doing what other products are doing. We remain open to that possibility there could be a better solution tho. But we haven't yet seen anything to convince us we're not on the money as we are.
- orra 3y ago> if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use. Then it wouldn't be open source, so I am not rooting for that. However, for better or worse, large successful businesses can be built on scaring companies to pay for a commercial proprietary license and/or support, for copyleft open source.