3 ms·

I honestly don't get why more people don't just use the AGPL. Mastodon et al prove it works.

Kalium 3y ago
I would hesitate to characterize a service running on grants and donations as a good model for your typical startup to imitate.
- forgotmypw17 3y ago
  Why not? It is one of the most sustainable models if you want to maintain quality and avoid enshittification.
  - Kalium 3y ago
    The VC-oriented financial model (that is, your typical startup) is fundamentally incompatible with Mastodon's non-profit financial model. As a result, very different choices around licensing, funding, and business structure are good fits. Each tool has its use and serves its specific purpose. What works for Mastodon might not work for others trying to advance different goals.
    - mcny 3y ago
      Nobody should take VC money unless they absolutely have no other option.
  - pc86 3y ago
    The primary goal of a startup is to make money through acquisition or IPO, and the primary goal of business more generally is to make money selling a good or service. Grants and donations don't really fit into that, and isn't the topic of this whether or not to open source the code of a commercial venture?
j1elo 3y ago
Well, Mongo decided it doesn't really work. At least not for them, anyway. This is one of the most notorious case of relicensing from Open Source to source available cases, so it might be interesting for you to look into the reasons (it happened around 2018). In the end, the AGPL is huge but not a silver bullet.
p_l 3y ago
It's a legal mess that doesn't work if your application isn't a website, and even then it's a problematic thing. Honestly, for considerable portion of its use, it works mainly because nobody looks too closely or trieso actually enforce it. The other considerable portion was/is bait&switch schemes involving dual licensing and having developers sign copyright transfer forms to parent org, which benefits from selling commercial license when someone runs afoul of compliance.
linuxftw 3y ago
For my money, dual licensed AGPL is the way to go. All source is available under the AGPL, but also available via a paid commercial non-open source license. The only real drawback is ensuring any outside contributions can be utilized this way, such as with a CLA.
- ghaff 3y ago
  That's the thing. You can dual license however you want. But if no one from the outside actually contributes what have you accomplished really? (Other than being able to say you're open source.) Of course, a great many open source projects in general are one person or one organization.
- nsagent 3y ago
  That's what I ended up doing recently [1]. I'm doubtful I would even know if someone did end up breaking the license agreement though. [1]: https://pl.aiwright.dev/about/license/ https://pl.aiwright.dev/about/license/

I would hesitate to characterize a service running on grants and donations as a good model for your typical startup to imitate.

forgotmypw17 3y ago
Why not? It is one of the most sustainable models if you want to maintain quality and avoid enshittification.
- Kalium 3y ago
  The VC-oriented financial model (that is, your typical startup) is fundamentally incompatible with Mastodon's non-profit financial model. As a result, very different choices around licensing, funding, and business structure are good fits. Each tool has its use and serves its specific purpose. What works for Mastodon might not work for others trying to advance different goals.
  - mcny 3y ago
    Nobody should take VC money unless they absolutely have no other option.
- pc86 3y ago
  The primary goal of a startup is to make money through acquisition or IPO, and the primary goal of business more generally is to make money selling a good or service. Grants and donations don't really fit into that, and isn't the topic of this whether or not to open source the code of a commercial venture?

j1elo 3y ago

Well, Mongo decided it doesn't really work. At least not for them, anyway. This is one of the most notorious case of relicensing from Open Source to source available cases, so it might be interesting for you to look into the reasons (it happened around 2018). In the end, the AGPL is huge but not a silver bullet.

p_l 3y ago

It's a legal mess that doesn't work if your application isn't a website, and even then it's a problematic thing. Honestly, for considerable portion of its use, it works mainly because nobody looks too closely or trieso actually enforce it. The other considerable portion was/is bait&switch schemes involving dual licensing and having developers sign copyright transfer forms to parent org, which benefits from selling commercial license when someone runs afoul of compliance.

linuxftw 3y ago

For my money, dual licensed AGPL is the way to go. All source is available under the AGPL, but also available via a paid commercial non-open source license. The only real drawback is ensuring any outside contributions can be utilized this way, such as with a CLA.

ghaff 3y ago
That's the thing. You can dual license however you want. But if no one from the outside actually contributes what have you accomplished really? (Other than being able to say you're open source.) Of course, a great many open source projects in general are one person or one organization.
nsagent 3y ago
That's what I ended up doing recently [1]. I'm doubtful I would even know if someone did end up breaking the license agreement though. [1]: https://pl.aiwright.dev/about/license/ https://pl.aiwright.dev/about/license/