So, the GPL license gives freedom to software users and protects them from the unfairness of proprietary software.But is there a license that protects the software developer as well? If I release the software under the GPL, there is nothing to stop large corporations like RedHat or Microsoft from taking my product and building an infrastructure around it that is impossible without corporate-level revenue, while using the developer's labor and giving him nothing in return.
>>101213222I hate the gnu icon so fucking much. It's ugly and the recursive acronym that is gnu is peak faggotry and terminal autism
>>101213222Something like the AGPL?
are you fucking retarded or something, licenses are for users, owner doesn't need a license, he owns the thing already
>>101213222>protects them from the unfairness of proprietary software.It does not. If corporations really want to use your work, no copylefted license is going to prevent them from doing so. In most countries in the world, breaking the terms of license is not a criminal offense onto itself, so you would have to file a civil lawsuit against someone. In this case, every corporation that really wants to win will win, because the have more money than all freetards in the world taken together and therefore can afford the best in class lawyers that will appeal as long as they want, since they will be able to cover the court costs. GH Copilot is the best proof for that, as it technically violates all sorts of copylefted licenses, yet MS still exists and is doing well.>b-but muh cisco, truthsocial etc.In this case, people in question decided that it is not worth it, or perhabs that they can use open source for their PR (in case of truthsocial). Nobody would stop them if they actually wanted to keep using copylefted code.
>>101213222SSPL, Futo Source First, AGPL+NIGGER
>>101213222+nigger
>>101213222Devs don't bank on how good their implementation is, but on the expertise they have acquired in order to make things work.TL;DR Licenses don't matter, really.
>>101213297It was clever and innovative at the time. Look at it from a historical standpoint, zoomer.
Yes, it's called the SSPL, it's highly controversial, and I'd strongly consider if it is worth preemptively adopting it.
if you absolutely want to do public service, SSPL + LLM clause
>>101213222You're a moron and will never built anything relevant so who cares?
>>101213222>there is nothing to stop large corporations like RedHat or Microsoft from taking my product and building an infrastructure around it that is impossible without corporate-level revenue, while using the developer's labor and giving him nothing in returnThis is the SaaS loophole.Use AGPLv3, it patche sit.Here is google stating that they wont use AGPLhttps://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policyNote the:>In some cases, we may have alternative licenses available for AGPL licensed code.which means that if you offer a dual licensing if they pay you for it, they will do so.
>>101213297i like it its funny
>>101213824>In this case, every corporation that really wants to win will winThen why did Cisco lose?
>>101214413>>101213222Much easier to have no license at allNo license means all rights reservedWhich means only people willing to steal it will use it
>>101218052It's dated, and I'm not s zoomer you goofy lunatic.
>>101221764https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses#agpl_affero_gpl_osl_and_sspl_not_allowed>Code released under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), the Open Software License (OSL), or the Server Side Public License (SSPL) cannot be used in google3 under any circumstances, and only very rarely on workstations.i wish we could change the license of all existing open source software to one of these
>>101221783read that again
>>101214413THe fucking FUTO source first license is fake and retarded.
>>101213222what is a disclaimer?
>>101213222Commies like stallman want you to work for free.
>>101213222AGPL is the solution. They'll either avoid it or contribute back.
>>101225582Or they pay you for dual licensing, which is the optimal solution.So everybody can contribute and use your project, except when its a corporation that wants to keep secrets from competition, then they have to pay up.
>>101226420Can't really become a community project then. I would never contribute to a GPL project if I have to agree they can dual license my code. I don't want my code to become proprietary, period.
>>101226949Your code won't "become proprietary". All it does is allow someone else to write proprietary extensions for it.
>>101226949>Can't really become a community project thenIt does not have to.It's still free software and you can still modify and fork it and do whatever you want. You still have all four freedoms.The one running the project will be fine, since he actually is able to earn money with it and isn't getting screwed over by some corpos.
