3 ms·
Would you consider dual-licensing this under a FOSS license like the AGPLv3? That's strong enough copyleft that I think you'll be safe from what you're trying t
by josephcsible 2y ago
Would you consider dual-licensing this under a FOSS license like the AGPLv3? That's strong enough copyleft that I think you'll be safe from what you're trying to avoid with your current nonstandard license.
- dpeckett 2y agoThat's actually a really good suggestion, the main reason for using a time limited source available license was that I didn't want to impose a viral copyleft on everyone and lock up the code forever. The custom license is a pretty basic derivative of the FSL-1.1 with MPL-2.0 instead of Apache (for a weak copyleft), I think I might keep the custom license in place (I'll make the very minimal changes from the stock FSL-1.1 clear). But adding an AGPLv3 license for those with ambiguity concerns is totally okay with me (it's ultimately more restrictive than the source available license in a lot of ways). Thank you for the great suggestion.
- dpeckett 2y agoDone, the noisysockets CLI is now available under the AGPLv3 (and NSSL-1.0), pick the license of your choosing with no legal ambiguity. If it turns out the FSL-1.1, and by virtue of being a derivative the NSSL-1.0 is legally sound, after four years the code will be available under the MPL-2.0. But you don't have to trust me, the AGPLv3 starts immediately. I'll update the source headers in the following days. Thanks!