At DEV we use the copy-left AGPL license which enforces that users of our software must also open-source their code and publish any changes.
Part of our aspirations as a provider of transparent social media is that anyone who uses our software must live up to the same transparency.
If/when we release more lower-level library-style software we'd release that under MIT so that it could be used in more different contexts.
I'm intrigued by some of the novel licenses which have restrictions on the basis of ethics or commercialization, and while I'd definitely experiment with those on personal projects, it's hard to be an early adopter of exotic licenses and do so with a lot of confidence that it holds up if challenged on any of its merits.
I love how you follow your own filosophy. In this case, i totally agree that the use of some kind of "restrictive" license is good not just for the owner(s) of the software, but for the entire open source community.
I am currently working in a closed-source company who benefits with open source code. I think is kind of unfair to not retribute to the community. That's why i'm planning to release open-source some part of the code i own.
Thanks for your reply!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
At DEV we use the copy-left AGPL license which enforces that users of our software must also open-source their code and publish any changes.
Part of our aspirations as a provider of transparent social media is that anyone who uses our software must live up to the same transparency.
If/when we release more lower-level library-style software we'd release that under MIT so that it could be used in more different contexts.
I'm intrigued by some of the novel licenses which have restrictions on the basis of ethics or commercialization, and while I'd definitely experiment with those on personal projects, it's hard to be an early adopter of exotic licenses and do so with a lot of confidence that it holds up if challenged on any of its merits.
I love how you follow your own filosophy. In this case, i totally agree that the use of some kind of "restrictive" license is good not just for the owner(s) of the software, but for the entire open source community.
I am currently working in a closed-source company who benefits with open source code. I think is kind of unfair to not retribute to the community. That's why i'm planning to release open-source some part of the code i own.
Thanks for your reply!