3 ms·
Not OP, but I think AGPL is generally an excellent choice for my hard work that I want to showcase. If I care about free software but also want to "protect" my
by kaladin-jasnah 2y ago
Not OP, but I think AGPL is generally an excellent choice for my hard work that I want to showcase.
If I care about free software but also want to "protect" my work to prevent people from forking it without releasing their contributions because of strong copyleft. Many of my open source personal projects are licensed under AGPL.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoAGPL makes no sense to me for projects that aren't focused on server use. This project is a good example of something that could just have a GPL license attached to it. I personally don't use AGPL software if I intend on trying to expand on something as a business idea. I'd be fully willing to give back bugfixes and donate back, but I'm not about to hand off anything I pour months and years into to my competitors for free.
- hgs3 2y ago> I'm not about to hand off anything I pour months and years into to my competitors for free. Library authors can pour "months and years" into their projects, and yet you expect them (but not yourself) to give away their code under more permissive terms, while you keep yours closed? The (A)GPL is a great choice because it forces people like you to either (1) open up your code or (2) pay for a closed-source license.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoI don't expect anyone to do anything, but if they do I intend on respecting the license. I also expect myself to give back however I can. I just don't see how you dismiss someone else's efforts. It's like valuing a home you bought and did work on, solely on how it looked before you bought it. Even if you tore down most walls and redid the flooring and interior drastically.