[Nokinside]

> you are generous and do non-AGPL based open-source ; parasites are waiting in the open

This is not you being generous or them being parasite. BSD type license is not "hint hint GPL type honor code". You need to communicate what you want from others trough the license.

If you use non-AGPL or non GPL open license that's a sign that others can exploit your work for commercial purposes without contributing back money or code.

If you use BSD type license and others exploit it like it was intended to, don't complain. If someone uses AGPL or GPL, but you need the code don't complain. Offer money or code.

[josephg]

Yes. Just to hammer this point home, I release most of the code I write under a BSD license in the simple hope it'll be useful to someone. I don't care if you make money from it (Cool! Tell me about it!) and for 80% of the projects I've written I don't actually want any of your patches. I'd often much rather people fork my work and maintain their own fork.

If this isn't your jam, the MIT/BSD licenses aren't for you. Go GPL or something.

[the8472]

Well, between and around AGPL and BSD there's a lot of configuration-space left unexplored.

How about an L-AGPL that so that the source of a component must be published without extending to the whole work?

Or maybe one that requires any changes made (patches) must be made available to the public under CC0, even if you only use it internally?

It's a pity that modified licenses are basically treated like plague spots, nobody wants to touch them. This conservationism prevents exploration of alternative development models.

[phunehehe0]

> How about an L-AGPL that so that the source of a component must be published without extending to the whole work?

Middle grounds exist though. The MPL is one that I like. It requires copyleft at the file level. However AFAIK it doesn't have the A in AGPL, i.e. it's pretty much like the BSD license if the software is a server application.

It certainly would be nice to have some more options.

[burntsushi]

> If you use BSD type license and others exploit it like it was intended to, don't complain.

Uh. No. This is only valid if you interpret laws and ethics as one in the same. Maybe you do. That's fine. But not everyone does.

[doesnt_know]

This type of reasoning is completely out of place in the context of a developer having full control of the license they release their own code under.

There are literally hundreds of different software licenses. You can just pick the exact one that matches your ethical world view.

There is no reason to pick one that doesn't reflect your intent, then being a passive aggressive asshole about it when others follow the license as described.

[burntsushi]

First of all, I never said anything about being a "passive aggressive asshole."

Second of all, you didn't even respond to specific point I made. You just repeated the GP's argument with extra force. You didn't even explore the notion of what happens if your ethics are different from what laws prescribe. For example, if you think that others should not plagiarize your work but simultaneously believe that monopoly copyright enforced by a third party (usually governments) should also not happen, then you're stuck. You can choose a license that permits others to plagiarize while simultaneously being ethically opposed to the act of plagiarism because you disagree with using laws to enforce your moral opposition to plagiarism.