4 ms·

I'm still working on it. What do you suggest? It could be either MIT Licensed / Apache / GNU v3 No, I don't think a CLA is required. I believe it would only

• gus_massa 3y ago
  That's a hard question. I prefer MIT or BSD, I but don't expect to see a single penny. And remember that it allows mega big corps to use and host and sell your program. I don't mind it, so it's totally fine for me, but other people get angry. For a server tool you can use AGPL that force everyone hosting your program to share the improvements. Many bussines don't like it, so it will get less adoption. You can sell a comercial licence for the (A)GPL haters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing I hate CLA! But if you start your project as AGPL, accept contributions and later decide to transform it to MIT, it would be very difficult. With a CLA you can change the licence to MIT or to propietary or a weird licence. I don't like it becuse it gives too much power to the mantainers. I'd not send PR to projects with CLA.
  • vednig 3y ago
    Yup, exactly after the whole Redis fiasco and RedHat Enterprise Linux Situation last year. I'm unsure about even the type of licensing let it be restrictive or non-restrictive. I don't want to build an organization or community that will be disappointed to a project they have contributed part of their time to.
  • vednig 3y ago
    I believe Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International is balanced on both sides https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
    • gus_massa 3y ago
      I think it's not designed for software. It may work, but I'm not sure.