| Remember, AGPL does not stop you from self-hosting or running a business on the software! It only requires you to share changes if you modify the software, which is a very reasonable requirement. I'm planning on launching a managed S3-alike service later this year and Minio is going to be what I use, it remains to be seen if they'll go to SSPL/BSL or anything else when enough people do this (maybe most wouldn't because of AGPL FUD so that's my uncommon advantage?). On a wider note though, is this going to be the projects/companies now? - Start permissively F/OSS project - Entice the community to contribute/produce content/market - (optional) Sell the project/cash out some how/get acquihired - Change the license of the project - Make all the new stuff source-available but not F/OSS to encourage people to get commercial licenses - ??? - Insert ads/subtle advertisements/banners into the OSS product so people are discouraged from hosting it (this is speculation, I assume this is what comes next) I sure do wish projects would be SSPL/BSL from the beginning, I want the freedom to be able to build a business on my freely obtained immensely valuable software, including hosting it, without worrying about rent seeking activity later. PS: yes, I'm aware of how incredibly selfish that last bit sounds, but I want to be honest about it -- this is what everyone is doing and why F/OSS software won. There's a world where we can build sustainable F/OSS software that runs on something other than donations, and IMO it looks like what Let's Encrypt's managed to do, where organizations that gain immense value from something do revenue-share style deals, but that's a discussion for another time. [EDIT] I just want to soften this -- I am NOT against companies making money from software. IMO AGPL is a great license because it actually maintains that freedom and requires contribution back (or monetary support). I just find that I am increasingly on edge whenever I see projects advertised as "open source" (but not free) and wonder if I'm just walking into a very nice, free-for-me mouse trap. BSL is a very nice license as well, it's straight forward, and IMO a great way to build an open source software company -- no one gets mad at Sentry for their license terms, because it's straight forward and obvious, and still giving a way value for free, just on a time delay. [EDIT2] I could have sworn there was a license that was like BSL but required anyone making over 1MM/year using the software to make some sort of contribution back, licenses like that might be cool too. |
> - Entice the community to contribute/produce content/market
> - Change the license of the project
You can't really do that without every contributor agreeing or using a compatible license (unless people sign CLAs, but even then you can only re-license further work).