3 ms·
AGPL and non-compete licenses like SSPL and FSL have been steadily adopted —Redis, ElasticSearch and Liquibase notably switched to them—, pretty much motivated
by forgetfulness 1y ago
AGPL and non-compete licenses like SSPL and FSL have been steadily adopted —Redis, ElasticSearch and Liquibase notably switched to them—, pretty much motivated by not wanting to be screwed over by Big Tech one way or another.
More than fine if you ask me, giving away your work for megacorps and oligarchs to steamroll your business or otherwise society at large isn’t much of a public service in the end
- Imustaskforhelp 1y agoYeah I have been thinking more and more about source available. I am not sure about AGPL as I feel like, some companies might still use it. honestly, it depends but all the companies which use non compete license somehow diverts back to AGPL if they were open source before So if some company/product was open source and then used source available license, the backlash would be so much that they go to something like AGPl most of the time but that happens because people feel betrayed because some might have contributed thinking its foss forever so its a rug pull I think a good idea could be to have a source available license from the start so that everybody who ever contributes knows this as a fact. What are your thoughts? What should I or anyone else pick? As a "foss" advocate, I would prefer AGPL but I don't want to get screwed by Big Tech ever with all the loopholes that they can have (like AWS), Honestly I don't know which is why I am asking really.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago> What should I or anyone else pick? My personal (non-mainstream) thought on this topic is: work on open source projects that serve a purpose that is very antithetical to the interests of bigtech companies. This way, such companies will be a lot less interested in "using" your project (without contributing back).