Open source licenses: Everything you need to know | TechCrunch
Ever wanted to know the difference between Apache 2.0 and MIT? Or permissive and copyleft open source licenses? Read on.
GPLv3 to prevent commercial use without payment otherwise whatever.
AGPL is better to force companies. I used to be a "Whatever" MIT guy, but I'm fed up with leeches that don't participate or contribute, and now all my projects are in the "Fuck you" AGPL license.
I wasn't aware. Thanks!
I want a license that forces moneymakers to have to pay. In absence thereof, AGPL and GPL FTW.
I chose FSL-MIT for my latest project that I plan to run as a service: https://fsl.software/
It's not technically OSS, but it is exactly what I want from a license. Users can do anything they want except make money off it themselves, but 2 years after release the software converts to MIT so you can make money off an old version of the software if you wanted. Basically I as the dev/maintainer get a 2 year lead on selling it as SaaS, and if you want to make money off of the latest versions we need to negotiate a different license agreement.
I think it's a good balance between being open source but also ensuring that development actually has a viable funding route.
Copyleft is super based.
choosealicense.com is great for an overview of common licenses.